--- Relevancy of-Judgment in one case based on evidence produced in that case, held, not relevant in other case and cannot be made basis of any conclusion.
M. R. Khalid for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st March,.1982.
This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Muhammad Asghar Khan wants this Court to declare the judgment and decree dated 16th December, 1980 and 4th July, 1981 passed by Judge, Family Court, respondent No. 2, and the District Judge, Sahiwal respondent No. 1 respectively to be without lawful autho--rity and of no l.-gal effect.
2. That facts leading up to this petition in brief, are that Mst: Abida Parveen was married to Muhammad Asghar Khan. The dower was fixed at Rs. 5,000. Mst. Abida Parveen filed a snit for the recovery of Rs. 5,000. She alleged that consummation had taken place. The petitioner/husband in his written statement denied the consummation. On the pleadings the following issue was framed :-
(i) Whether the petitioner (respondent No. 3) is entitled to recovery Rs. 5,000 as an amount of prompt dower After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, respondent No. 2, decreed the suit. He held that consummation had taken place. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal, on 4th July, 1981. Hence this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued.
(i) that in a suit for maintenance filed by Mst. Abida Parveen against Muhammad Asghar Khan petitioner herein the Judge, Family Court, vide judgment dated 5th February, 1981 (Annexure "E") found that consummation had not taken place and, as such the impugned judgments are without lawful authority. Moreover, the evidence having not been properly appreciated, the impugned judgments are illegal and of no legal effect ;
(ii) that the learned District Judge has affirmed the impugned decree of the Judge, Family Court, without hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, and (i.e) that since there was no conciliation proceedings by respondent No. 2 the decree is illegal.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. So far as the first contention is concerned, there is no substance in it because the judgment in one case which is based on the evidence produced in that case is not relevant in the other case and as such, cannot be made the basis of any conclusion. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had jurisdiction over the matter. They have applied their minds to the legal and factual aspects of the matter and have given good reasons in support of their decisions. Grievance of the petitioner that they have not properly appreciated the evidence or have decided the case wrongly are not good ground for interference by this Court while sitting in its writ jurisdiction.
As for the second contention, it appears to be factually incorrect. The impugned judgment of the learned District Judge shows that the counsel for the petitioner was present and lie was heard.
Presumption of correctness is attached to it.
As regards third contention, there is nothing to show that conciliation proceedings were not taken. I find that this ground was not taken by the petitioner in memorandum of his appeal before the learned District Judge, as such, there is no substance in this contention.
5. For what has been stated above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.