ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C. P. No. S – 2108 of 2017

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For hearing of main case

2. For hearing of CMA No.13047/2017

17.09.2018

Mr. Muhammad Rehan Khan Durrani advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Ali Napar advocate for respondent No.1.

..................

Learned counsel has taken me to the two orders passed by trial Court as well as appellate Court. He has pointed out that the lady has not appeared in the witness box and that the documents filed along with the affidavit in evidence of the petitioner were not considered. He further argued that the dowry articles as mentioned in the list were returned in presence of Muhammad Hamid brother of the lady.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. All these points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in fact factual controversies and the concurrent findings of two courts below cannot be upset by re-appraising the evidence. Insofar as the appearance of respondent No.1 through a witness is concerned, there is absolutely no restriction. If at all petitioner was interested in examining respondent No.1 he could have filed list of witnesses including the name of respondent No.1 as witness, which he failed. All documents attached with the affidavit in evidence were not exhibited. These documents are not automatically exhibited at the time of filing affidavit in evidence. A witness is supposed to appear in the witness box and should have been examined himself and should have produced originals of all those documents so that Presiding Officer may exhibit such documents. There is no error apparent on the face of it as such on the basis of these factual controversies the concurrent findings cannot be upset. The petition as such has no substance and is dismissed along with listed application.

__________________

J U D G E

N.M.