Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE III, BAHAWALPUR
1988 C L C 442
1988 C L C 442
[Lahore]
Before Amjad Khan, J
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE III, BAHAWALPUR
and another‑‑Respondents.
Writ Petition No.3‑F of 1986/BWP, decided on 7th March, 1987
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑
‑‑‑S 14‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) , Art 199 Constitutional jurisdiction against finding of Appellate Court whereby petitioner's appeal against decree for jactitation of marriage was dismissed on assumption that such Court had no jurisdiction in the matter‑ Constitutional jurisdiction being discretionary in nature, its exercise was regulated largely by facts and circumstances of a dispute, and cannot be exercised in disregard thereof, and not even as a matter of mere course‑‑Even where impugned order was found to be illegal, constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked if such order was found to be just and proper one‑‑Although petitioner's appeal against, decree for jactitation of marriage was maintainable under S.14 of Act XXXV of 1964, inasmuch as same does not fall within exclusion class thereof, yet case against petitioner having been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction on merits, and such decision not shown to be either unjust and improper on record, case for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction against same could not be made out.
Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others P L D 1973 S C 236; Begum Shams‑un‑Nisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi and another 1982 S C M R 413 and Rehmat Ullah and Mst. Hameeda Begum and others 1986 S C M R 1561 rel.
Rana Muhammad Yaqoob Khan for Petitioner.
ORDER
A suit for jactitation of marriage filed by Mst. Sughran Bibi respondent No.2 was decreed by the Family Judge, Ahmadpur East by his judgment dated 1‑10‑1986. Petitioner filed an appeal there against in the District Court at Bahawalpur which was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge on 9‑12‑1986 on the assumption that it was not competent under Section 14 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964.
2. The defendant seeks the aid of this Court to assail the appellate order in this writ petition which, however, is not accompanied by either a copy of the judgment passed against him by the Family Court or that of the evidence led in the suit.
3. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and its exercise is regulated largely by the facts and circumstances of a dispute so that it is not open to be exercised in disregard thereof and not even as a matter of mere course. Petitioner has not even detailed the facts of the controversy in his petition to apprise this Court either of the justness of his claim or even to canvass impropriety of the judgment passed by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence which may have been led by the parties. Reference may be made to Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others P L D 1973 S C 236, Begum Shams‑un‑Nisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi and another 1982 S C M R 413 and Rehmat Ullah and others v. Mst. Hameeda Begum and others 1986 S C M R 1561 for the proposition that even if an impugned order is found to be illegal, writ may not issue if the order may be a just and proper one. Although it is correct that the petitioner's appeal to the District Court against the decree for jactitation of marriage was maintainable under Section 14 of the Punjab Family‑Courts Act, 1964 inasmuch as such an appeal does not fall within the exclusion‑clause thereof, yet, since a Court of competent jurisdiction has decided the case against the petitioner on merits to hold him to be an impositor and he has not shown that judgment to be either unjust or improper on the record and muchless has he made out a case about his being just for being granted relief against it, therefore, writ cannot issue at his instance. No case at all for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction can be held to have been made out on the present record.
4. The Writ Petition has no force is accordingly dismissed in limine.
A . A . / M‑512 / L Petition dismissed.