Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL JABBAR VS Respondent: SUGHRA BIBI
1988 S C M R 1632
1988 S C M R 1632
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ABDUL JABBAR‑‑Petitioner
versus
Mst. SUGHRA BIBI‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.173 of 1987, decided on 14th May, 1988.
(From the judgment and order dated 11‑1‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Civil Revision No.14 of 1987).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.20 do 21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Objection to jurisdiction‑‑Respondent's suit for recovery of value of dowry decreed against petitioner‑‑Decision upheld in appeal and revision‑ Leave to appeal sought on ground that Civil Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain respondent's suit‑‑Pleas that petitioner was permanent resident of England, his Nikah was performed on telephone, respondent joined him there .and her dowry had been detained by him in that country, not entertained‑‑Petitioner though residing in England was found to be permanent resident of B in Pakistan and in his application filed in trial Court, he had himself given B as his permanent address‑‑No case having been made out for interference, leave to appeal refused.
Taj Muhammad Khan Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th May, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondent was the wife of the petitioner. She obtained a decree against him in the sum of Rs.24,500 on account of the value of her dowry which had been wrongfully detained by him. The decree was passed by the Civil Court at Burewala. His appeal before the District Judge and revision petition before the High Court remained unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The only contention raised in support of this petition is that the Civil Court at Burewala did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent. He states that he was a permanent resident of England and that his Nikah with the respondent was performed over the telephone. He further states that after his Nikah, respondent No.1 joined him in England and that it was the case of respondent No.1 herself that her dowry had been detained by him in that country.
3. The Courts below have attended to the question of jurisdiction and have come to the conclusion that the petitioner though residing in England, was a permanent resident of Burewala. In support of this finding, they have referred to an application of the petitioner himself which he had filed in the trial Court wherein he had given Burewala as his permanent address. That being so, we do not think that any case for interference with the decree passed by the Civil Court at Burewala has 'been made out. This 'petition is accordingly dismissed.
M.I. /A‑270/S Petition dismissed.