' The petitioner, through this Constitutional petition, has challenged the decree dated 5-11-1990 passed by respondent No,2.
2. The relevant facts are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner was served for 10-10-1990 when he sought an adjournment for the submission of written statement. The suit was accordingly adjourned to 18-10-1990 which was made last opportunity. However, there was again a request for adjournment. The suit was adjourned to 3010-1990 but it was made absolutely last opportunity. On this date the learned Presiding Officer was busy with general elections. Therefore, the suit was adjourned to 5-11-1990.
The petitioner again sought an adjournment. The respondent No,2 declined the same and decreed the suit. The petitioner has now impugned this decree through this petition. The same was admitted to hearing and notices were sent to th respondents. Respondent No,1 alone has appeared and contested the petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition, argued that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code were not applicable and there was no warrant for decreeing the suit without recording evidence. The learned counsel, in this behalf, has referred to the case Bashir Ahmad v.
Mst. Zubaida, Bibi and another 1990 A L D 180.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,1/plainitff argued that the petitioner was afforded more than sufficient opportunity to file the written statement but he did not avail the same. Therefore, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well the precedent cases. The admitted position is that no evidence was recorded by the respondent No,2. Therefore, the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Bashir Ahmad v. Mst. Zubaida Bibi and another (supra) is on all fours. This is not the end of the matter. The next question arises whether the petitioner should be allowed an opportunity to submit his written statement? The manner the respondent No,2 has conducted the proceedings cannot be appreciated. He should have proceeded ex parte when the written statement was not filed. But on the other hand he granted opportunity. Since now the order dated 5-11-1990 which resulted in the decree is being set aside, therefore, in the interest of justice it is set aside in to. The petitioner will now be provided one opportunity for the submission of written statement and it will be subject to Rs,1,000 (Rupees One Thousand) as costs. The suit shall be decided afresh in accordance with law.
6. The result is that this petition is allowed, and the impugned order and decree dated 5-11-1990 is set aside. The suit is remanded for expeditious decision and in any case before 30th April, 1991. The parties shall appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, on 24-24990.