Family writ | 50000 fine on misuse of the process.
خاوند کو پچاس ھزار جرمانہ۔
اس مقدمے کی کہانی کچھ یوں ہے:
1. **ابتداء**
: محمد سلیم کے خلاف ایک خاندانی مقدمہ دائر کیا گیا تھا جس میں درخواست گزاروں (جو کہ محمد سلیم کے اہل خانہ تھے) نے Maintenance Allowance اور دیگر مالی حقوق کا مطالبہ کیا تھا۔ فیملی کورٹ نے 24 ستمبر 2019 کو فیصلہ سنایا جس میں maintenance allowance اور دیگر مالی حقوق کی منظوری دی گئی۔
2. **اپیل**
: محمد سلیم نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل دائر کی جو 22 نومبر 2019 کو مسترد کر دی گئی۔
3. **غیر قانونی اپیل*
*: 15 جنوری 2022 کو، محمد سلیم نے اپیل کو منسوخ کرنے کی درخواست دی، جس میں کہا کہ وہ اس اپیل کے بارے میں لاعلم تھا اور اس کی طرف سے دائر نہیں کی گئی تھی۔ اپیل عدالت نے اس درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔
4. **پہلا رٹ پٹیشن**
: محمد سلیم نے 7 اکتوبر 2022 کو لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں ایک رٹ پٹیشن دائر کی، جو بعد میں وکیل کی ہدایت پر واپس لے لی گئی۔
5. **دوسرا رٹ پٹیشن*
*: 5 نومبر 2022 کو، محمد سلیم نے دوبارہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں ایک نئی رٹ پٹیشن دائر کی، جس میں کہا کہ پہلے والی پٹیشن غلط طور پر واپس لی گئی تھی۔ ہائی کورٹ نے اس پٹیشن کو "فضول" قرار دیتے ہوئے 50,000 روپے جرمانہ عائد کیا اور فیصلہ برقرار رکھا۔
6. **سپریم کورٹ میں درخواست
**: محمد سلیم نے سپریم کورٹ میں درخواست دی کہ ہائی کورٹ کے جرمانے کو معاف کیا جائے اور فیصلے کی رقم قسطوں میں ادا کرنے کی اجازت دی جائے۔
7. **فیصلہ**
: سپریم کورٹ نے ہائی کورٹ کے جرمانے کو معاف کرنے یا قسطوں میں ادائیگی کی درخواست مسترد کر دی اور اپیل کی اجازت دینے سے انکار کر دیا۔
Must read judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
( Appellate Jurisdiction )
Present:
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan
Civil Petition No.3601-L Of 2022
(On appeal against the order dated 28.10.2022 of the
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in W.P. No. 65452 of
2022)
Muhammad Saleem
…
…
Petitioner
Versus
ADJ
…
…
Respondent
For the petitioner :
Mr. Muhammad Tanveer Chaudhry, ASC
For the Respondent:
Not represented
Date of hearing
:
23.07.2024
O R D E R
NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, J.
After proceeding on
merits, Family Suit No.1229-FJ-18 filed by the respondent Nos.3 to
6 (plaintiffs) against the petitioner (defendant) for recovery of
maintenance allowance, recovery of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as
per Iqrar Nama between the parties, has partially been decreed by
the learned Judge, Family Court Pakpattan Sharif (the Trial
Court) vide judgment and decree dated 24 September 2019 in the
following terms:
i.
Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of maintenance
allowance from the defendant @ Rs.3,000/- per
month with 10% annual increase for her period
of Iddat.
ii.
Minor plaintiff/respondent No.2 is found entitled
to recover her maintenance allowance at the
rate of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of
institution of suit till their marriage with 10%
annual increase.
iii.
The minor plaintiff No.3 & 4 are found entitled to
recover their maintenance allowance at the rate
of Rs.4,000/- per month per head from the date
of institution of suit till their legal entitlement
with 10% annual increase.
iv.
Claim of the plaintiff for past maintenance
allowance is hereby declined.
C. P. No. 3601-L of 2022
2
v.
Claim of plaintiff for recovery of gold ornaments
is hereby declined.
2.
The defendant preferred appeal which came up for hearing
before learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif (the
Appellate Court). The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 22 November 2019.
3.
On 15 January 2022 the defendant submitted a
miscellaneous application before the Appellate Court for recalling
the judgment and decree dated 22 November 2019 on the ground
that neither he had filed any appeal nor he had thumb impressed
or signed any appeal; that filing of appeal was managed by plaintiff
No.1 (Mst. Parveen Akhtar) in the name of defendant by engaging a
lawyer; that he did not engage Mr. Zafar Yab Khan, Advocate (his
counsel at the trial).
4.
After hearing the defendant in person with Malik Muhammad
Akram Naz Advocate, the Appellate Court observed that the memo
of appeal titled as “Muhammad Saleem V. Parveen Akhtar etc.”
which was filed to challenge the judgment and decree dated 24
September 2019 passed by the Trial Court, was bearing thumb
impressions and signatures of the defendant. It was further
observed by the Appellate Court that the defendant has not
submitted any application against the Advocate before any forum.
5. In view of the above observations, the application of the
defendant was dismissed in-limini by the Appellate court vide order
dated 27 January 2022.
5.
Without disclosing the above order dated 27 January 2022
passed by the Appellate Court on his miscellaneous application,
the defendant filed Writ Petition No.61308 of 2022 before Lahore
High Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 24
September 2019 passed by the Trial Court as well as the judgment
and decree dated 22 November 2019 passed by the Appellate
Court.
6.
On 7 October 2022, Rana Sohail Ashraf, Advocate appearing
on behalf of the defendant in Writ Petition No.61308 of 2022
C. P. No. 3601-L of 2022
3
solicited permission to withdraw the writ petition on instructions of
the defendant due to which writ petition No. 61308 of 2022 was
“dismissed as withdrawn” by Single Bench of Lahore High Court
vide order dated 7 October 2022.
7.
Subsequently on 5 November 2022, the defendant filed
another Writ Petition No.65452/2022 in Lahore High Court
challenging the judgment and decree dated 24 September 2019
passed by the Trial Court we as well the judgment and decree
dated 22 November 2019 passed by the Appellate Court with the
contention that the earlier Writ Petition No.61308/2022 was
withdrawn by the learned counsel without his instructions and on
getting knowledge about withdrawal of his writ petition by his
counsel without his instructions, he has filed second writ petition
by engaging Mr. Muhammad Tanveer Chaudhary, Advocate.
8.
Second Writ Petition No.65452/2022 filed by the defendant
has been dismissed by Single Bench of the Lahore High Court vide
order dated 28 October 2022 with imposition of cost of
Rs.50,000/- upon the defendant holding the same as “frivolous
and otherwise not maintainable in law” against which the
defendant has filed the instant petition.
9.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner stated
that he is not pressing the instant petition on merits and will press
the same to waive off the cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the
defendant by the Lahore High Court and to grant permission to the
defendant to satisfy the judgment and decree dated 24 September
2019 passed by the Trial Court in installments.
10.
While dismissing Writ Petition No.65452 of 2022, Single
Bench of Lahore High Court has made serious observations about
misconduct of the defendant who by concealment of relevant facts
from the lawyers and Courts, managed to file miscellaneous
application as well as second writ petition after dismissal of his
appeal on merits by the Appellate Court and after withdrawal of his
earlier writ petition from Lahore High Court by making false
accusations against the worthy lawyers without any substance.
C. P. No. 3601-L of 2022
4
11.
In the peculiar circumstances of instant case, the defendant
does not deserve any leniency. There are no convincing reasons to
waive off the cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the defendant by
Single Bench of Lahore High Court vide impugned order dated 28
October 2022.
12.
The request made by learned counsel for the defendant for
satisfaction of the judgment and decree dated 24 September 2019
passed by the Trial Court in instalments cannot be entertained by
this Court as no such application has been filed by the defendant,
being judgment debtor, before the Executing Court.
For the above reasons, while refusing leave to appeal, the
petition is dismissed.
Judge
Judge
Islamabad
23.07.2024
Atif *
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING