1. ' In this petition following prayer has been made:
(a) To declare that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi Central - the respondent No.3 in Family Appeal No.37 of 2000 is not sustainable both on facts as well as in law and is liable to be set aside.
(b) That the impugned judgment and decree in question be set aside awarding costs to the petitioner.
(c) Granting any further better relief to the petitioner which this Honourable Court deems,fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. ' Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that petition filed against the respondent a Suit No.41023 of 1999 for restitution of conjugal rights whereas respondent No.1 filed .11.1innst him two suits bearing No.1045 of 1999 and 11 of 2000 for d,smilution of her marriage by way of Khula' and for recovery of dowry articles respectively. Suit Nos.1023 and 1045 of 1999 were consolidated and by a ,:ommon judgment dated 28th March, 2000 the marriage of petitionel and respondent No.1 was dissolved whereas the suit instituted by Suit No.I023 of 1999 was dismissed. The third Suit No.11 of 2000 was partly decreed in favour of respondent vide decree dated 26th April, 2000 passed by IXth Civil and Family Judge, Karachi (Central) whereby the petitioner/defendant was directed to return some of the dowry articles mentioned in the list of articles produced in evidence. Feeling aggrieved against the said decree respondent No.1 filed Family Appeal No.37 of 2000 which was allowed vide judgment dated 22nd May, 2001 passed by Vth Additional District and Session Judge, Karachi (Central). It is against that judgment that petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition.
3. ' I have heard both the learned counsel for parties and with their assistance. I have gone through the impugned judgment.
4. ' It was contended by Mr. Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner that the learned Appellate Court did not properly appreciate the evidence which in actual effect was not read in toto. It was further argued by Mr. Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed that had the Appellate Court gone through the entire material, it would have given a different and correct opinion dismissing the appeal filed by respondent No.1. On the other hand, Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate for respondent No.1 contended that respondent No.1 had based her entire case on the list of dowry articles produced in her evidence and learned trial Court onlyallowed some of the dowry articles as mentioned in the said list to be given to the said respondent, therefore, feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court she filed an appeal which was decided on the basis of the same list of dowry articles and a legal ,tnd lawful decision was made. Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan further contended that petitioner had not challenged the decree of trial Court which allowed some articles from the list hence as far as the list of articles is concerned that stood unchallenged. He viewed the said list cannot now be challenged in a Constitutional petition simply on the basis that a different view in the said list could have been taken by the Appellate Court.
5. ' Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate during the course of his arguments challenged the very list which contained the articles of dowry. He, however, did not deny that the articles of dowry which were allowed by learned trial Court were not the part of the list of dowry articles which was produced by respondent No.1 in her evidence. He admitted that no appeal was filed by petitioner against the decree based on the said list. Accordingly, in my view the same cannot be challenged, now, in this petition. The other contention of Mr. Mirza that after going through the entire record this Court may arrive at a different decision to the one already made by learned Appellate Court cannot be taken as a ground to maintain this Constitutional petition. Even otherwise, the High Court is not required to sit as a Court of appeal. In this behalf reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Waryam and others v. Superintending Canal Officer (S.C.O.), Thal Canal Circle Mianwali and others (1997 M LD 403). In view of the above I do not see any merit in this Constitution petition and dismiss the same in limine.