KHALID AKHTAR vs Mst. ROBINA and others
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenges a judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Lahore, which dissolved the marriage of the respondent after closing the petitioner's evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted arbitrarily and without lawful authority by refusing to record the statements of the petitioner and his father, who were present in court, despite the petitioner's counsel being unable to appear due to illness. The High Court held that the trial court's failure to record the statements of the petitioner and his father, who was listed as a witness, was unjustified and rendered the judgment without lawful authority. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned decree and remanded the case for a fresh decision, granting the petitioner one final opportunity to produce his witnesses. The key principle laid down is that a court must record the testimony of witnesses present in court, even if it denies a request for further adjournment, to ensure a fair trial and avoid arbitrary disposal of cases.
- Whether a Family Court acts without lawful authority by refusing to record the statements of witnesses present in court?
- Can a trial court close evidence and decree a suit when the party and their witnesses are present in court?
- Is a judgment rendered without lawful authority if the court fails to record available evidence?
- Article 199, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the judgment and decree of Mr. Muhammad Latif Cheema, Judge Family Court, Lahore dated 21st of November, 1990 whereby after closing the evidence of the petitioner he decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage filed by respondent No,1.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on 21st of November, 1990 he was unable to appear on account of serious ailment of his eyes and the trial Court has acted arbitrarily in refusing adjournment. The further contention of the learned counsel is that according to the order of the Family Court itself the petitioner and his father was present in Court but their statements were not recorded. Sh. Zahoorul Hach the learned counsel for the respondent has been heard in reply.
3. According to the order, dated 21st of November, 1990 of the trial Court, the petitioner as well as his father appeared at the time when the case was called. The name of the father of the petitioner stands mentioned in the schedule of witnesses filed by the petitioner alongwith his written statement. In these circumstances even if the trial Court was of the view that there was no justification for further adjourning the case, the statements of the father of the petitioner and the petitioner should have been recorded by the Family Court. However, for the reasons which are not discernible on the record, the Family Court failed to do so which has rendered its judgment to be without lawful authority.
' For the reasons aforesaid this petition is allowed, the judgment and decree, dated 21st November, 1990 is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh after allowing one last and final opportunity to the petitioner to produce his witnesses at his own responsibility. The parties shall appear before the Judge Family Court on 25th of June, 1991.
' There shall be no order as to costs.
Cited by 3 cases
- SARDAR M. JAHANGIR vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT & 2 others 2015 PLJ Islamabad 79
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT and 2 others 2015 PLJ Islamabad 79, 2015 CLC 990
- SARDAR M. JAHANGIR vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT & 2 OTHERS 2016 NLR Civil 408