S.A.MANAN, J.- This constitutional petition is directed against order dated16.11.1993 of the District Judge Khushab maintaining the order of the Judge Family Court dated 27.6.1993 refusing to admit additional evidence.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Mst. Parveen Akhtar filed a suit for dissolution of marriage where both the petitioner and respondent have recorded their respective evidence.
Thereafter the petitioner Bled an application dated 13.6.1993 for placing on record a copy of the statement dated 1.7.1991 of the respondent in criminal litigation which application was rejected by order dated27.6.1993 on the ground that the same was belated as the suit was filed on11.3.1992 and the statement sought to be relied upon was recorded on 1.7.1991 in criminal litigation and that the petitioner was fully aware about the same. It was observed by the Judge Family Court that the application was misconceived and not tenable in law at this belated stage. The petitioner filed and appeal and the same was rejected on 16.11.1993 by the District Judge, Khushab on the ground that the same was not competent and that it was only the final order, decision or decree which could be appealed against.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who vehemently argued that the Judge Family Court was competent enough to allow the petitioner to produce the required statement.
4. There is no cavil with the legal proposition canvassed by the learned counsel but in this particular case the trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner for reasons recorded in his order dated 27.6.1993. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 11.3.1992 and the petitioner filed the application for placing on record the statement of the respondent made on 1.7.1991 and the learned lower Court refused to accept the application of the petitioner cm the ground that the same was filed at a very belated stage. In view of this there was nothing illegal for the Judge Family Court to have rejected the belated application of the petitioner. It has been held in Abdur Rehman vs. Haji Mir Ahmad Khan (PLD 1983 S.C.21) that the inter locutory orders cannot be challenged as it was not desirable to have piecemeal decisions.
For reasons stated above no interference can be made in the impugned orders, t here fore, there is no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed in limine.