' Through this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge, Multan, whereby the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff for bringing in an amendment to the'list of reliance annexed to the plaint in a suit for declaration instituted by him was partially dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration, contending that the purported entries made- in Columns Nos. 13, 14, 17 & 18 of Nikah Nama dated 25.02.2011 are bogus and the outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. On the basis of these averments, a declaration was sought that the same were not binding upon the petitioner and ineffective upon his rights.
3. Mst. Nadia Kausar, Respondent No. 2 herein put in an appearance and filed a written statement, controverting all the assertions made by the petitioner/plaintiff. It was maintained by her that the allegations levelled by the petitioner were baseless, groundless, ill-founded and that they are just an attempt on his part to evade the liabilities arising from the Nikah Nama dated 25.02.2011.
4. As the suit got under way, the petitioner himself appeared as PW-1, and in his deposition he reiterated the contents of the plaint. He also examined Rana Muhammad Wakeel (PW-2) and Mehboob Ali (PW-3). Needless to say, the petitioner was to tender in evidence the documents as well in support of his pleas. Instead of producing the same, he came up with an application on 26.11.2013 seeking to incorporate certain items in the list of reliance filed by him under Order VII Rule 14, CPC. The details of the documents sought to be produced were set out in Paragraph No. 2 of the application. It would be wholly unnecessary to give the details for the simple reason that the application moved by the petitioner was by and large allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan.
However, it was disallowed o the extent of allowing the petitioner to produce the video regarding the marriage ceremony.
5. In support of this petition, Mr. Shakeel Javed Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the application of the petitioner was allowed in the main, there was no justification to disallow it in part. He submits that the learned trial Court tried to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. He argues that the video made at the time of the marriage between Respondent No. 2, Mst. Nadia Kausar, and the petitioner was a genuine one and the question of its manufacturing, tampering or mixing it up with other video clippings did not arise at all. Therefore, according to him, the production of the video in question was essential to the just and fair decision of the case instituted by the petitioner. He concludes his submissions by maintaining that non- production of the video in question would seriously prejudice the case of the plaintiff.
6. On the other hand, Messers Rao Jamshaid Ali Khan and Rana Muhammad Shakeel Advocates, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has seriously opposed this petition, arguing that it has never been the case of the plaintiff that any video was made at the time of solemnizing of the marriage; that no such assertion was made by the petitioner when he appeared as PW-1; that the contents of a video in question may be tampered very easily and any clipping may be added, inserted or deleted by making use of the modern software. Therefore, the authenticity of such a video, whose maker is not known, was rightly disallowed by the learned trial, Court. They further submitted that since the application of the petitioner was allowed to the large extent, the petitioner/plaintiff has got no right at all to voice his grievance by filing a writ petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, besides perusing the documents appended to the writ petition.
8. I am of the considered view that this writ petition is not maintainable. As noted above, the petitioner had instituted a civil suit for declaration along with perpetual injunction, maintaining that the entries made in columns Nos. 13, 14, 17 & 18 of Nikah Nama dated 25.02.2011 are bogus, deceptive, fraudulent and as such ineffective upon his rights. As a consequential relief, the petitioner asked for the correction of the record pertaining to the entries recorded in the aforementioned columns of Nikah Nama. For all intents and purposes, it was a civil suit. However, due to some misconception of facts and law, the petitioner/plaintiff has been regarding it as a family suit, and this fact is amply borne out by the contents of the instant writ petition. Probably, due to this confusion, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to assail the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the learned trial Court, proceeding as he did on the assumption that an appeal was not maintainable against an interlocutory order under Section 14 of A the W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964 and that his only remedy was to file a writ petition. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner did not avail of his remedy before the learned District Judge, Multan, by filing a revision petition against the impugned order dated 21.01.2014. In no case could he be allowed to bypass a forum available to him. It goes without saying that an aggrieved person may file a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 only if he does not have any other efficacious and adequate remedy. In the face of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
9. Even on merits, the petitioner could not make out any case for the interference of this Court. It was rightly held by the learned trial Court that the petitioner attempted to spring a surprise on Respondent No. 2/defendant by coming out with a video, about which no mention was ever made by him either at the time of filing the suit or in the, course of his deposition. Again, no application was made by the petitioner under Order XIII, CPC to justify as to why he did not make an entry on the form prescribed under Order VII Rule 11, CPC regarding the disputed video in his possession, which was to be produced later on. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent's side that the video in question is a fake, fabricated and made-up one, cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, unless the maker of the CD was examined and he was subjected to cross-examination, a question mark would continue to hang over its authenticity. It can also not be disregarded that in this day and age, gadgets and software are plenty to help join video clippings to paint a picture of one's liking. In fact, anything may be depicted/portrayed, with disastrous consequences. Therefore, even if the law permits such evidence to come in, the Court is to be cautious and wary of admitting it in evidence, in routine. It is to exercise caution before allowing the production of such evidence, which may so easily be manufactured and fabricated.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.