MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE III, BAHAWALPUR

ORDER

A suit for jactitation of marriage filed by Mst. Sughran Bibi respondent No.2 was decreed by the Family Judge, Ahmadpur East by his judgment dated 1‑10‑1986. Petitioner filed an appeal there against in the District Court at Bahawalpur which was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge on 9‑12‑1986 on the assumption that it was not competent under Section 14 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964.

2. The defendant seeks the aid of this Court to assail the appellate order in this writ petition which, however, is not accompanied by either a copy of the judgment passed against him by the Family Court or that of the evidence led in the suit.

3. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and its exercise is regulated largely by the facts and circumstances of a dispute so that it is not open to be exercised in disregard thereof and not even as a matter of mere course. Petitioner has not even detailed the facts of the controversy in his petition to apprise this Court either of the justness of his claim or even to canvass impropriety of the judgment passed by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence which may have been led by the parties. Reference may be made to Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others P L D 1973 S C 236, Begum Shams‑un‑Nisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi and another 1982 S C M R 413 and Rehmat Ullah and others v. Mst. Hameeda Begum and others 1986 S C M R 1561 for the proposition that even if an impugned order is found to be illegal, writ may not issue if the order may be a just and proper one. Although it is correct that the petitioner's appeal to the District Court against the decree for jactitation of marriage was maintainable under Section 14 of the Punjab Family‑Courts Act, 1964 inasmuch as such an appeal does not fall within the exclusion‑clause thereof, yet, since a Court of competent jurisdiction has decided the case against the petitioner on merits to hold him to be an impositor and he has not shown that judgment to be either unjust or improper on the record and muchless has he made out a case about his being just for being granted relief against it, therefore, writ cannot issue at his instance. No case at all for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction can be held to have been made out on the present record.

4. The Writ Petition has no force is accordingly dismissed in limine.

A . A . / M‑512 / L Petition dismissed.