ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

 

 

Constitutional Petition No.S-674/2010

 

 

1.                  For orders on M.A 7400/11.

2.                  For orders on office objection No.1 a/w reply as flagged.

3.                  For orders on MA 7236/11.

4.                  For Katcha Peshi

5.                  For orders on MA 7237/2010

 

 

Date of hearing:  03-10-2011

 

 

Mr. Shabbir Hussain Hashmi, Advocate for the Petitioner

----------------

 

AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, J. Through these proceedings, the Petitioner has prayed as under:-

(a)        This Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the Record and Proceedings of the Family Suit NO. 125 of 2009 (Re-Noor Bibi Vs. Azad Ali) from the learned lower Courts and after its examination and scrutiny as to its legality, validity, propriety and correctness, and hearing the parties at length, allow the petition, set aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and appellate Courts.

(b)        Costs of the Petition may be awarded to the petitioner.

(c)         Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit, just and proper may also be awarded in the circumstances of the case.  

            From the pleadings, it appears that on 06.04.2009 respondent had married with petitioner and Haq Mahar was fixed two (2) tola gold, which was not given to her. The parents of the respondent gave dowry articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- to her. However, the relations between the spouses became strained and ultimately on 26.9.2009 the petitioner pronounced Talaq to the respondent but he neither paid her dower amount nor returned her dowry articles. The respondent demanded Haq Mahar and dowry articles but could not succeed. Ultimately, she filed suit for recovery of Haq Mahar two (2) tolas gold and dowry articles. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement, whereby he denied the contents of plaint. Issues were framed, both parties led their respective evidence and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence brought on record, learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent to the extent of recovery of remaining dower amount after deducting the value of two tolas gold at the time of her marriage from total dower amount of Rs.100,000/- and dowry articles vide judgment dated 17.5.2010, which was appealed against by the Petitioner before the Additional District Judge Kotri, who dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment of the trial Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2010 and the same is impugned in these proceedings. 

            It is, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by lower Courts are opposed to law, facts and equity. Per learned Counsel, the list of dowry articles was neither signed by the witnesses nor same was prepared at the time of marriage but it was an after thought and a managed document. Per learned Counsel, the Lower Courts did not consider the material aspect of the case in its true perspective.

            Heard. Perusal of the impugned judgments reflects that the petitioner in his written statement and evidence has admitted that some dowry articles are with him and he voluntarily offered the respondent to take away the same from his house but the respondent and her relatives did not accept such offer. Since, the petitioner himself has admitted in his evidence that some dowry articles are lying in his house, therefore, in view of above, I do not find any legal infirmity to interfere in the concurrent findings of two Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of evidence. In the circumstances, the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner have no force, even it is settled principle of law that the High Court in writ jurisdiction could not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by competent forums having jurisdiction and the High Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings for the impugned findings.  

            For the foregoing reasons and the dicta laid down by the Apex Court the instant petition being meritless was dismissed along with listed application by my short order dated 03.10.2011 and these are the reasons in support of the same.

 

                                                                                         JUDGE

October 03rd, 2011.

 

                               

 

 

Ali Haider/P.A