MUHAMMAD AQEEL Versus KAUSAR BANO

ORDER

This civil Revision has been filed by a father against the appellate judgment dated 22‑2‑1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhang in his guardians jurisdiction exercisable under the West Pakistan (now Punjab) Family Courts Act, XXXV of 1964 whereby he dismissed his two appeals filed against the consolidated judgment dated 16‑6‑1983 passed by Mr. Sher Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Guardian Judge, Jhang rejecting his application for the grant of custody to him of the minor son Naeem Akhtar aged 3 years by simultaneously allowing the mother's application for the grant to her of the custody of their other minor son Saleem Akhtar stated to be almost 7 years of age.

2. The revision petition was admitted to regular hearing but dismissed for non‑prosecution on 29‑9‑1984. Three applications were thereafter filed on 12‑3‑1985 bearing the respective C.M. Nos. 1239, 1240 and 1241/C of 1985 to seek restoration of the revision petition upon condonation of delay in maintaining the .petition and even for suspension of operation of the order for dismissal in default of the revision petition. Whereas the last‑mentioned prayer contained in C.M. No. 1240/C of 1985 was rejected on 13‑3‑1985 a5 being misconceived; notice was ordered to issue to the opposite‑.party in the other two petitions which were, however, once again dismissed for non- prosecution on 31‑5‑1986 along-with C.y1. No. 1342/C. of 1985 filed again for securing suspension of operation of the orders passed by the two Courts below. C.M. No. 2900/C of 1986, filed by the petitioner for recall of the order about the dismissal for non‑prosecution of the aforementioned three petitions, was allowed on 11‑6‑1986 in absence of opposition and they have now been listed for hearing.

3. It was held in Mst. Tehseen Akhtar v. Mahmoodul‑Hassan PLD 1971 Lah. 875 that orders passed under the Family Courts Act are not revisable by this Court. A Full Bench of the High Court of Sind also took the same view in Mst. Zaibun Nisa v. Muhammad Mozammil PLD 1972 Kar. 410. Any doubt in the matter has now been authoritatively set at rest by the judgment of their Lordships of the) Supreme Court reported as Ihsan‑ur‑Rehman v. Mst. Najma Parveen PLD 1986 SC 14 wherein, while re‑affirming the view already expressed) in Sakhawat Ali and another v. Mst. Shui Khelay PLD 1981 SC 454 to the effect that there is no revisional jurisdiction available to be exercised by the High Court against the judgments passed by the District Judges, whether in the appellate or in the original jurisdictions in guardianship cases, it was held at page 28 of the report that, "the High‑ Court has no revisional jurisdiction‑‑whether in cases dealt under the Family Courts Act or those dealt with under the Guardians and Wards Act by virtue of section 25 of the Family Courts Act".

4. Although an allegation about a clerk inadvertantly omitting to locate a case in the cause‑list is so conveniently and equally frequently made for covering up the default in appearance which in certain cases is made even wilfully, yet, the experience has shown that such an assertion, howsoever well‑founded it may be, is often left short of being proved to the required standards of satisfaction. The fact, however, remains that clerks act as agents of the counsel for the concerned litigant and even if such an assertion were to be made by I the concerned counsel as concerning his own self, he will still be under a liability of satisfying the Court that he had taken all the due precautions. In any event, the shortcoming in this context has to tell against the party concerned. Be this, as it may, since the application for restoration was filed in this case more than 30 days after the dismissal for non‑prosecution and there is no explanation even worth the name furnished for the period elapsing between 9‑3‑1985, the admitted date of knowledge and 12‑3‑1985 when the application was actually filed, therefore, there is no case made out at all for re‑admission of the Civil Revision which itself being untenable in law, all these applications have to fall alongwith the Civil Revision which is also hence dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs throughout.

A . A . / M‑439 / L. Revision dismissed.