ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
C. P. No.
S – 2153 of 2017
C. P. No. S – 2154 of 2017
|
Date of hearing |
Order
with signature of Judge |
27.08.2018
Mr.
Yousuf Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Nazir Ahmed Chachar, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr.
Noor Hassan Malik, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
These petitions
are against the concurrent findings of two Courts below. The suit for
dissolution of marriage by way of khulla and
for recovery of dowry articles and maintenance was filed by one Mst. Salma against Wajid Khan. The suit was decreed and as
against that a Family Appeal No.13 of 2016 was filed. The first appeal No.13 of
2016 was filed against the judgment and decree, whereas, subsequent appeal
No.25 of 2016 was filed against the order of the executing Court in Execution
Application No.10 of 2016 whereby the execution was allowed. Learned counsel
for the appellant at the very outset was inquired as to how this petition is maintainable
against the concurrent findings of facts of two Courts below and he was unable
to answer. He read the cross examination of plaintiff / respondent No.1 wherein
the cross examination was conducted as if an examination in chief was being
recorded. Counsel for the appellant asked questions from the respondent and he
categorically answered that at the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry
articles such as sofa set, dinner set, steel dinner set, utensils, iron box, 10
rilli, 05 pillows, 02 blankets, 02 bedsheets, 10
stitched clothes, 10 unstitched clothes, 01 water set, to me and cash amount of
Rs.3000/-. Insofar as the reliance of the cross examination of the mother of
the respondent is concerned, no doubt the list was prepared by the counsel but
it was on the instructions of the mother of the respondent. No case of error /
non-reading and misreading of evidence is made out, the concurrent questions of
facts cannot be questioned under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan. The petitions have no substance and two orders impugned
here do no call for any interference.
These are the reasons for the short
order announced today i.e. 27.08.2018.
J U D G
E
Abdul Basit