' Brief facts of the instant writ petition are that the respondent No,1 filed a suit for maintenance allowance against the petitioner. This suit was contested by the respondent, who categorically stated that the respondent No,1 stands divorced by the present petitioner and the divorce has become effective. Learned Judge Family Court formulated the following issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for maintenance? If .So, at what rate and for which period?
OPP.
(ii) Whether the defendant has divorced the plaintiff? If so, on which date? OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(iv) Relief.
2. Parties led their evidence learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree, dated 21-6- 1999, while giving issue wise findings decreed the suit entitling the minors to recover Rs 800 per month in future from the date of institution of the suit. The past maintenance was also allowed .From 10-10-1996 to 2l-6-1999 Rs,25,870. The maintenance to the extent of respondent-wife Mst.
Razia Bibi was refused. In earlier round of litigation the judgment and decree, dated 30-9-1998 was assailed in appeal and vide judgment and decree, dated 1-12-1998 the case was remanded, directing the suit to be re-tried afresh. After remand the plaintiff respondent produced her oral as well as documentary evidence while the defendant failed to produce evidence, so his defence was closed. Two appeals were filed before the learned appellate Court, one by Mst. Razai Bibi and the other by the present petitioner. Both the appeals were heard together. The learned appellate Court vides judgment and decree, dated 21-1-2000 dismissed both the appeals. Instant writ petition challenges both the judgments and decrees.
3. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier suit was filed by Mst. Razia Bibi-mother of the minors, later on she gave an application that the minors be impleaded as parties as she was divorced by the present petitioner and divorce had become effective, she has no locus standi to obtain maintenance on behalf of the minors and even about her own maintenance. Further submitted that Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to the family suits, therefore, the parties could not be impleaded as the respondent gave an application for amendment of the pleading to bring the names of minors on record.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and carefully perused the record. I am afraid I am not convinced by the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. An application was given under Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. For amendment of pleadings on the basis that in the initial suit filed by the respondent Mst. Razia Bibi, names of the minors Mst. Ishrat Bibi and Mst. Muqaddas Bibi were not in the array of plaintiffs. The suit was filed on their behalf by the mother as guardian ad litem and the application was given for the amendment of pleadings. The learned Judge Family Court dismissed the application filed by Mst.
Razia seeking permission to implead the minors for claiming maintenance allowance but preceded to grant maintenance in respect of minor daughteRs, This fact was assailed in appeal before the learned appellate Court, where it was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that even if the minors were not arrayed in the plaintiffs, but claim pertains to their maintenance allowance through their next friend and legal guardian, their mother Mst. Razia Bibi, therefore, Family Court has rightly granted maintenance to the minoRs, The learned appellate Court held that finding on issue No,2 attained finality as the minors were born during the subsistence of wed-lock, they were entitled for the grant of maintenance..
5. So far as application of Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, section 17 of Family Court Act, 1964 specifically bars the application of C.P.C. And provisions of Evidence Act, 1872, except sections 10 and 11 to the proceedings before any Family Court, the intention of legislature is _for expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to marriages and family affairs but, since the Family Court Judge is a Court, Court has inherent powers to pass orders to avoid multiplicity of cases between the parties. The Family Court could have allowed the application to bring the minors names in the array of plaintiffs, Ishrat Yar Khan v. S.C.J., Mardan etc. PLD 1982 Pesh.
151. The averments in plaint disclosed that suit for maintenance is filed on behalf of the minors through their mother. Although the mother also claimed maintenance, but her claim was refused by the learned Judge Family Court and also by the learned appellate Court. The minors are also parties before the learned appellate Court in both the appeals, therefore, no such objection can be raised at this stage.
6. I have found no legal infirmity in the concurrent fading of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below, even otherwise this matter is timely taken by the learned subordinate Courts in two rounds of litigation, therefore, finding no substance in the instant writ petition, the same is dismissed in limine.
Petition dismissed.
2000 0 L C 1210 [Lahore] Before Syed Zahid Hussain, J Min SHER ALAM, ADVOCATE---Petitioner versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRAT and 7 others---Respondents Writ Petition No,23788 of 1998, heard on 8th October, 1999.
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1997)--- ----Ss. 13 & 30---Pre-emption suit---Bar of limitation---Dispute with regard to date of attestation of mutation of suit land---Vendee, during the pendency of the suit, filed application before the Revenue Authorities to hold inquiry as to the correct date of attestation of the mutation---Validity- --Where the suit was pending with the Civil Court, question as to whether the suit filed by the pre- emptor was barred by time or not would be decided on the basis of material produced before the Civil Court in accordance with law---Proceedings before Revenue Authorities were not desirable or warranted---Assumption of jurisdiction in the matter by the Revenue Authorities was illegal and without jurisdiction. [p. 1213] A & C Sher Zaman v. Mst. Nawab Khatoon and 7 others 1998 SCM R 133; Muhammad Safdar Ali Iqbal v. Sher Muhammad and 2 others 1980 CLC 520 and Sher Afgan v.
Sheikh Anjum Iqbal 1997 M LD 98 ref.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Quashing of proceedings--Scope---Where the assumption of jurisdiction is without lawful authority and is apparent on the face of the proceedings, the same can be quashed in Constitutional jurisdiction. [p. 1213] B Sindh Employees'
Social Security Institution v. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Taj and another PLD 1975 SC 450 ref. Petitioner in person.
Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Respondents Nos.4 to 7.
Date of hearing: 8th October, 1999.
' Assumption of jurisdiction by respondents Nos.1 to 3 on an application, filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7, has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution which arises in the following circumstances:-
2. A suit for pre-emption was filed by the petitioner and respondent No,8, who are brothers inter se against respondents Nos.4 to 7 on certain grounds mentioned in the plaint. An application was filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint on the plea that mutation of sale had been sanctioned on 28-1-1998, against which, the suit filed on 22-6-1998 was time-barred and the plaint should be rejected. This application was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff, that the suit was within limitation as the relevant mutation was sanctioned on 28-2-1998. On hearing the parties concerned, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 vide order, dated 15-10-1998, against which order, I am informed, that an appeal has been filed which is pending before the learned appellate Court. While the matter. Was still pending respondents Nos.4 to 7 made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat to hold an inquiry as to the correct date of attestation of mutation which application was marked by him to Assistant Commissioner Kharian and Tehsildar on 13-10-1998 for immediate appropriate action. The Assistant Commissioner, Kharian also ordered the Tehsildar to hold an inquiry and report vide his order, dated 16-10-1998.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter, at present, is pending in the Civil Court and on the same subject matter inquiry by respondents Nos.1 to 3 is likely to prejudice the case of the parties. It is further contended that none of the respondents had jurisdiction in the matter after the mutation had been sanctioned and the application filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 is merely an attempt to pressurize the preemptors/petitioneRs, He has referred to Sher Zaman v. Mst. Nawab Khatoon and 7 others 1998 SCM R 133 and Muhammad Safdar Ali Iqbal v. Sher Muhammad and 2 others 1980 CLC 520 in support of his submissions.
4. The learned counsel for the private respondents contends that correction of entries in the Revenue Record falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer in terms of section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, therefore, only respondents Nos.1 to 3 can hold an inquiry in the matter. It is contended that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners/pre-emptors if inquiry is held by respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the matter. He relies upon Sher Afghan v. Sheikh Anjum Iqbal 1997 M LD 98 to contend that writ could not be issued in the matter.
5. The controversy that was raised by respondents Nos.4 to 7 in the nature of an application before the learned trial Court, seized of the suit for pre-emption, was that the mutation was sanctioned on 28-1-1998, whereas the petitioners/pre-emptors relied upon a note made by Tehsildar that it was attested on 28-2-1998. The learned trial Court while disposing of the said application has observed that it is a matter of evidence which can be decided on recording evidence as to whether the suit was barred by time or not. An appeal filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 is pending with the learned appellate Court which, of course, will be decided in accordance with law. Parallel proceedings which may have relevance and implications upon the subject-matter of the suit cannot be countenanced. In the case of Sher Zaman (supra) wherein approving the view taken by this Court in Safdar Ali Iqbal's case (supra) it was observed that the proceedings in a pre-emption suit were of judicial nature, whereas, the correction of Khasra Girdawari was an administrative act mint only for fiscal purposes and such proceedings by the Revenue Authorities will amount to interference with the course of justice. It is a salutary principle laid down by their lordships to keep the judicial proceedings uninfluenced through any other method. Now when the suit is pending with the learned civil Court the question as to whether the suit filed by the petitioners/pre-emptors is barred by time or not will certainly be decided on the basis of material produced before respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the matter on a miscellaneous application by respondents Nos.4 to 7 are not desirable or warranted in view of the circumstances stated above.
6. Where the assumption of jurisdiction by an authority is without lawful authority and is apparent on the face of the proceedings, the same can be quashed in a writ jurisdiction. Reference may be made to Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution v. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Taj and another PLD 1975 SC 450 where a notice issued by the Labour Court was challenged before the High Court of Sindh and the petition was dismissed as premature, however, on appeal the proceedings initiated and pending with the Labour Court were declared to be without lawful authority and were quashed.
7. In view of the above, the assumption of jurisdiction by respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the matter is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. This I C petition is accordingly accepted.
8. It needs to be observed that while deciding the matter, the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this judgment and shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.
' No order as to costs.