MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs Mst. ISHRAT BANO and another
This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the decision of an Additional District Judge partially decreeing a suit for the recovery of dowry articles. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court and the High Court erred in their assessment of the evidence after the appellant failed to produce witnesses for cross-examination in post-remand proceedings. The Supreme Court found that because the appellant's witnesses were excluded from consideration due to their non-availability for cross-examination, the trial court was left only with the evidence provided by the respondent. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court held that the lower appellate court and the High Court were justified in their findings. The Court concluded that there was no misreading or non-reading of the evidence by the courts below. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the partial decree in favor of the respondent, as the evidence presented by the respondent was sufficient to support the claim.
- Does the failure to produce witnesses for cross-examination in post-remand proceedings justify the exclusion of their evidence?
- Can a judgment be set aside on the grounds of misreading or non-reading of evidence if the lower courts' findings are supported by the available record?
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---A suit for recovery of dowry articles filed by respondent No, 1 against the appellant was dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh on 31-3-2008 but subsequently an appeal filed by her in that regard was partly allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh on 21-5-2008. The appellant preferred a Writ Petition in that respect before the Lahore High Court, Lahore but his Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 23-6-2010. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
3. It is admitted at all hands that the statements of the witnesses produced by the appellant before the learned Judge, Family Court were excluded from consideration for valid reasons because in the post-remand proceedings the appellant had failed to produce those witnesses for their cross- examination by respondent No,
1. This had left the learned Judge, Family Court with the evidence produced by respondent No, 1 only. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have gone through the evidence produced before the learned Judge, Family Court by respondent No, 1 and have found that the learned Additional District Judge, Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh was quite justified in partially decreeing the suit filed by respondent No,
1. Even the learned Judge-in- Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had attended to all the relevant facts of this case and had concurred with the learned Additional District Judge. No misreading or non-reading of the record on the part of the learned two courts below has been pointed out before us. Our own perusal of the evidence produced by respondent No, 1 has led us to the same conclusion which had been drawn by the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.