ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

 

C.P No. S-  603 of 2011

 

                                                                                   

DATE         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For Orders on M.A 6860/11.

2. For Orders on M.A 6861/11.

3. For Katcha Peshi

09.09.2011.                        

Mr. Naseer Khan Laghari, Advocate for Petitioner.

                        =

1.         Granted.

2.         Granted subject to all just exceptions.

3.         Through this Constitutional Petition the Petitioner has impugned the judgment dated 23.7.2011 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, in Family Appeal No. 09/2011, whereby he dismissed the above appeal and concurred with the judgment dated 10.12.2010 passed by Civil/Family Judge-VI, Hyderabad, in Suit No. 122/2010, whereby he passed the judgment and decree in favour of Respondent No.1.

            From the pleadings, it appears that the Respondent No.1 filed a suit for maintenance and recovery of dowry articles against the Petitioner. The Petitioner contested the said suit by filing his written statement. However, during the trial, both the parties led their evidence and ultimately suit was decreed in favour of Respondent No.1 against which, Petitioner preferred an appeal but could not succeed hence he has filed instant petition.

            Per learned Counsel, Respondent No.1’s version in respect of list of dowry articles was not supported by any witness and the judgment passed by Trial Court was against the facts and material available on record. He further contended that even the Appellate Court did not consider such important aspect of the case in its true perspective.

            I have heard the learned Counsel and perused the judgments. Upon a perusal of record, it appears that Respondent No.1’s version with regard to her dowry articles has been corroborated by her witnesses namely Ishtiaque Ahmed, Rizwan and Muhammad Farman.  Though the Petitioner in his written statement denied the version of the Respondent No.1, however, in evidence he admitted that some of the dowry articles viz. clothes, utensils, sofa sets, sleeping bed, almirah and showcase are lying with him. It is almost settled principle of law that finding of facts of two Courts below cannot be interfered unless the conclusion arrived at is not contrary to the record or capricious or fanciful.  

            For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in the instant petition, which is dismissed in limine.

                                                                                                JUDGE