Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs Mst. SHAHIDA PARVEEN And 2 Other
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal arising from family court proceedings where the petitioner challenged ex parte decrees granted against him in suits for dower debt and maintenance. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in closing the petitioner's evidence and proceeding ex parte when the petitioner's counsel failed to appear on the fixed date, and whether the High Court correctly dismissed the subsequent writ petitions. The Supreme Court held that the trial court acted within its discretion, noting that the petitioner's counsel failed to appear or request an adjournment on the scheduled date. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner's remedy lay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree rather than filing writ petitions against the appellate orders. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot bypass established procedural remedies for setting aside ex parte orders by invoking writ jurisdiction, particularly when the party failed to attend the trial proceedings or seek timely adjournments through counsel.
- Can a party invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge an ex parte decree without first seeking to set aside the decree in the trial court?
- Is a trial court justified in closing a defendant's evidence when the defendant's counsel fails to appear on the date fixed for evidence?
- Does a writ petition lie against an appellate order confirming an ex parte decree when the petitioner failed to pursue statutory remedies for setting aside the ex parte order?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order shall dispose of C.P.S.L.A. No.36 of 1984 and C.P.S.L.A. No.37 of 1984, both filed by Muhammad Ashfaq. The facts are that his wife, Mst. Shahida Parveen, had filed to suits against him in the Court of Family Judge: one for the recovery of Rs.6,100 as dower debt and the other for maintenance.
The learned trial Court had fixed 27-5-1982 as date for recording the evidence in both the cases in the presence of the petitioner's counsel. The counsel, however, failed to appear on that date with the result that the learned trial Court recorded ex parte evidence of the respondent but closed the defendant (petitioner's) evidence. Both the suits were finally decreed in favour of Mst. Shahida Parveen, respondent, on 3-6-1982.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the learned District Judge who declined to interfere. The petitioner thereupon filed to writ petitions before the High Court. Writ Petition No.2744 of 1983 related to suit for maintenance while Writ Petition No.2746 of 1983 related to the recovery of the dower debt. These were, however, dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 9-10-1983.
Hence the present to petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had not been granted reasonable opportunity by the learned trial Court to seek instructions from his client, whom he could not contact despite effort. We find no force in this plea for he should at least have himself appeared on the date fixed for evidence, explained the position and asked for further the. Moreover, he should have filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree but instead, he filed writ petitions against the orders of the District Judge which, in the circumstances, 1 did not lie.
4. After going through the impugned judgment, we find that the High Court was justified in not interfering with the judgments of the learned Judge, Family Court and the learned Additional District Judge. Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.