ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner challenges order dated 21.05.2015 whereby the appellate court dismissed the application for framing of additional issues in respect of vehicle No. 1026/ SLA Toyota Corolla Car Model 2007, as a part of dowry articles.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the specific plea raised by the petitioner in the written statement submitted on 24.03.2010, in response to the suit for recovery of dowry articles, a specific issue regarding purchase .of said vehicle was required to be framed as the said vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner subsequent to the marriage, therefore, it could not be considered as a part of dowry articles. Places reliance upon (PLD 1985 Peshawar 38).
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that since the issue of dowry articles was dealt with comprehensively by the learned Judge Family Court and without explaining the reason for such a delayed plea of framing of additional issues, the request cannot be acceded to.
Places reliance upon (2010 CLC 1594).
3(sic). Arguments heard. Filed perused.
4. On 16.01.2010, respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles as per list Ex.P6 valuing Rs.
40,73,900/-which was resisted by filing written statement on 24.03.2010 specifically alleging in paragraph No.3 of the preliminary objections that car No. 1026/ SLA was also off on 31.03.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/- by the father of respondent No.1 to him.
However, on 27.09.2010 the following issues were framed:-- ISSUES.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of dowry articles valuing Rs. 40,73,900/- as prayed for? OPP 2 Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and liable to be dismissed? OPD
4. Relief.
A perusal of the interim orders reflect that on 13.12.2010 an application for addition of witnesses namely, Muhammad Ishaq and Ch. Sarfraz, was moved which was allowed on the basis of judgment titled Asghar Mehmood v. Judge Family Court and another (PLD 2002 Lahore 410). An application was also filed by the petitioner to summon the record in respect of Car No. 1026/SLA Model 2007 from the office of Motor Registration. Authority, Sahiwal but the said application was dismissed on 06.09.2012 as the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner/ defendant. Another application of the petitioner for making an offer to respondent/plaintiff to take away the admitted dowry articles was also rejected on the ground that the case was fixed for evidence of petitioner/defendant. It was after the recording of the evidence of the parties that suit of respondent No.1 was decreed on the finding on issue No. 1. The said judgment and decree is under challenge before the appellate court where it is still pending. Meanwhile, the application for framing of following additional issues was filed.
Additional Issues.
1. Whether Toyota Corolla car model 2007 was purchased by appellant No.1 vide transfer deed dated 31.03.2007 in exchange for Rs.9,00,000/-? OPD
2. Whether the car mentioned above does not become part of dowry? OPD This application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.05.2015 on the ground that finding on issue No.1 is comprehensive and no additional issue was required to be framed.
5. Admittedly, the vehicle in question is registered in the name of the petitioner and the vehicle was mentioned on the top of the list of dowry articles. The question whether it was sold off to the petitioner or was given to him by respondent No.1 by her father as part of dowry articles was already dealt with by the Judge Family Court. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 Nadeem Azam v. Additional District, Judge Shujabad, Multan and another (2010 CLC 1594) is applicable to the facts of this case as in the said judgment the framing of additional issue by the appellate court was disapproved by this Court as there was sufficient evidence to discuss whether the vehicle was the part of dowry articles. Admittedly, no sale receipt is produced by the petitioner to show that it was a sale. It is also not denied that said transfer of vehicle was immediately after when the marriage was contracted. The very fact that no application for framing of additional issues was filed during 3 years of pendency of suit and one and a half year of the pendency of appeal show that petitioner has raised this plea after a fatal delay.
6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has been found meritless and is, therefore, dismissed.