MAMOON KAZI, J.- The appellant is plaintiff in Suit No. 27/1990 which she has filed against one Shahid Rasool Jan. The appellant filed a Misc. Application (CMA Ntv. 894/1992) requesting that she being "very strict parda nasheen lady" should be exempted from appearance before .1he Court and her evidence may be recorded on commission, It was also urged on her behalf that she had given both to a child and therefore she was unable to attend the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The appellant was also apprehensive about some indecent questions being asked in Court during her cross-examination. However, none of the said grounds found favour by the learned Single Judge who dismissed the application.
2. The only ground urged before us by The learned counsel for the ap|K'llanl is that she being a parda nasheen lady should have been exempted from apiKarance before the Court. Mr. (iauhar Ali Shah (iilani, learned counsel for the appellant, has firstly argued that she being a Muslim woman cannot be compelled to appear before-the Court in view of what has been ordained by Almighty Allah in Soorah Al-Nur enjoining upon believing women to restrain their gaze and guard their private parts and not to display their adornment except that which is displayed of itself, and to draw their veils over their bosoms. Support ha'< also been sought by the learned counsel from Section 132 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides as follows: "132. Exemption of certain women from personal appearance.--(l) Women who, according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to'appear in public shall be exempt from personal appearance in Court.
(2) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to exempt such women from arrest in execution of civil process in any case in which the arrest of women is not prohibited by this Code."
Le irncd counsel has also called in aid some judgments earlier given on the point in vathumal Chunduinul vs. Haribai (AIR 1935 lnd. 205), Mst. Faiz Bibi vs. Shaft Mahammad (PLD . 55 SlNDH 3368, Ruhuria Reinkali Kuer vs Chhathoo Singh (AIR 19f1 Pal. 210) and SM. Sttndar Devi vs. Dattatruya Narhar Rege And Another (AIR 1933 All. 551). In all the said cases it was unequivocally held that the provisions of Section 132 CPC are mandatory and the Court was bound to'issue commission for recording evidence of a parda nasheen lady.
3. The question which, however, requires determination is whether every woman who claims to be a parda-nasheen lady would be entitled to exemption as enjoined by Section 132 CPC. It is pertinent to point out that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant all that the appellant had claimed in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit was that she was a parda-nasheen lady. It is pertinent to point out that the expression parda-nasheen lady" has no where been defined either in the Ci'il Procedure Code-or in any other enactment. Mr. (Jilani has in fact not made reference to any such enactment before us. Section 132 CPC which Mr. Gilani has invoked provides that women who according to the customs and manners of the country are not to Ik compelled to appear in public, shall be exempted' from personal appearance in the Court. A plain reading of Section 132 CPC therefore indicates that it must first be established by the woman seeking exemption under the said section that either according to the customs being followed in her country or manners' she ought not to lx: compelled to appear in public. However, the appellant evidently has failed to make such claim in the affidavit filed on her behalf. To say that she was a parda-nasheen lady was not sulficicnl because a question arises whether she was compelled by any custom or any.Belicf, may it be religious or otherwise, not to appear jn public and seek exemption from personal appearance.
From simply saying that the appellant was a parda-nasheen woman, it does not automatically follow that she was compelled by any such reasons not to appear in public. No doubt, in the cases relied upon by Mr. Gilani, it has been held that the provisions of Section 132 CPC arc mandatory in nature. However, it must first be established that the case of the applicant really falls within the purview of Section 132 CPC. Since, as just pointed out, the appellant has failed even to assert in her affidavit that either it was on account of any custom being followed by her family or for any other reason that the applicant was entitled to invoke Section 132 CPC, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly dismissed her prayer. We consequently find no force In this appeal.4. In the result, this appeal is dismissed as no other ground has been urged by the learned counsel. The parlies are left to bear their own costs.