IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
CP.No.S-16 of 2024 : Mst. Sana Sarfraz vs.
Parwaiz Ali Mangnejo & Others
For the Petitioner : Messrs Ghulam Ghulamullah Memon and Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto,
For the Respondents : Mr. Atta Hussain A. Chandio for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Asstt. A.G. Sindh.
Dates of hearing : 13.05.2024
Date of announcement : 13.05.2024
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. This writ petition assails concurrent judgments rendered in the family jurisdiction. Family Suit 300 of 2022 was partly decreed in favour of the petitioner and Family Appeal 55 of 2023 there against was dismissed. The petitioner prays for setting aside of the trial court judgment, conferring benefits thereupon, as well as the appellate court judgment.
At the very onset petitioner’s counsel was confronted as to whether setting aside of the trial court judgment, conferring substantial benefits upon the petitioner, was actually sought. The counsel replied in the negative, however, such a submission was observed to be prima facie in dissonance with the prayer clause herein.
Petitioner’s learned counsel was asked to identify any jurisdictional defect in the judgments impugned, however, none could be identified. Instead, it was averred that the evidence had not been appreciated in its proper perspective and since there is no further provision of appeal, hence, the exercise may be conducted de novo in this writ petition.
The narrative contained in the judgments could not be controverted by the petitioner’s counsel. A perusal of the pleadings and record, with the assistance of the counsel, could not displace the observations rendered by the respective courts.
It is settled law that the ambit of a writ petition is not that of a forum of appeal, nor does it automatically become such a forum in instances where no further appeal is provided[1], and is restricted inter alia to appreciate whether any manifest illegality is apparent from the order impugned. It is trite law[2] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law. The impugned judgment appears to be well-reasoned and the learned counsel has been unable to demonstrate any manifest infirmity therein or that it could not have been rested upon the rationale relied upon.
In so far as the plea for de novo appreciation of evidence is concerned, it would suffice to observe that writ jurisdiction is not an amenable forum in such regard[3].
The Supreme Court has recently had occasion to revisit the issue of family matters being escalated in writ petitions, post exhaustion of the entire statutory remedial hierarchy, in Hamad Hasan[4]and has deprecated such a tendency in no uncertain words. It has inter alia been illumined that in such matters the High Court does not ordinarily appraise, re-examine evidence or disturb findings of fact; cannot permit constitutional jurisdiction to be substituted for appellate / revisionary jurisdiction; ought not to lightly interfere with the conclusiveness ascribed to the final stage of proceedings in the statutory hierarchy as the same could be construed as defeating manifest legislative intent; and the Court may remain concerned primarily with any jurisdictional defect. Similar views were earlier expounded in Arif Fareed[5].
It is the deliberated view of this Court that the present petition does not qualify on the anvil of Hamad Hasan and Arif Fareed. Therefore, in mutatis mutandis application of the ratio illumined, coupled with the rationale delineated supra, this petition is found to be misconceived, hence, hereby dismissed along with listed application.
Judge
[1]Per Ijaz ul Ahsan J in Gul Taiz Khan Marwat vs. Registrar Peshawar High Court reported as PLD 2021 Supreme Court 391.
[2]Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in Naheed Nusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.
[3]2016 CLC 1; 2015 PLC 45; 2015 CLD 257; 2011 SCMR 1990; 2001 SCMR 574; PLD 2001 Supreme Court 415.
[4]Per Ayesha A. Malik J in M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari & Others reported as 2023 SCMR 1434.
[5]Per Amin ud Din Ahmed Jin Arif Fareed vs. Bibi Sara & Others reported as 2023 SCMR 413.