SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.---By way of filing this petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has assailed validity of judgments and decrees, dated 28.02.2017 and 01.08.2017 passed by the learned Judge family Court, Sargodha (the learned trial Court) and the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha (the learned Appellate Court), respectively.
2. At the outset learned Counsel for the petitioner states that though only two PWs were examined but not only the learned trial Court but also the learned Appellate Court has referred to the statement of PW3, thus, it is a fit case for remand.
3. While responding to the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing respondents Nos,1 to 3 submits that though one Muhammad Imran submitted his affidavit but he did not appear for cross-examination, thus, mere mentioning of PW-3 does not render the impugned judgments illegal.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents, annexed with this petition, I have noted that the learned trial Court has specifically referred to PW-3 whereas according to learned counsel representing the petitioner there were only two PWs which fact has been affirmed by learned counsel representing respondents Nos, 1 to 3. While deciding the matter, the learned Appellate Court instead of applying its independent mind has toed the line of the framed trial Court.
5. It is imperative to note that the PWs instead of making their statements before the Court tendered their affidavits in evidence but during cross-examination on the said witnesses the learned trial Court has not specified the name of the witness which was being cross-examined. The said material flaw on the cart of the both the courts below cannot be let unnoticed rather deserve to be deprecated with iron hands.
6. According to learned counsel for respondents Nos,1 to 3 though Muhammad Imran submitted his affidavit in evidence but he did not appear before the court for cross-examination. If the said person did not face the rigours of cross-examination how any reference could be made to PW-3.
The said fact also speaks volumes about casual approach on the part of the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court.
7. In view of the above, instant petition is accepted, impugned verdicts of both the courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh.
8. Office is directed to call for explanation of the Mrs. Rabia Tareef, the then Judge Family Court, Sargodha and Mr. Sohail Ikram the then Additional District Judge, Sargodha regarding to the afore- noted flaw and put the same before me on administrative side.