Muhammad lqbal vs Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur and others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his constitutional petition challenging an ex parte decree for the recovery of dower passed by a Family Court. The petitioner argued that his absence during the original proceedings was due to a mistaken belief that his dower suit had been consolidated with a separate suit for damages filed by the respondent, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the petitioner admitted that no formal consolidation order existed and that the hearing dates for the two suits were distinct. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the dower claim relied on a fabricated Nikahnama from 1995, asserting that the marriage actually occurred in 1992. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the 1992 Nikahnama relied upon by the petitioner lacked the respondent's signatures. Finding no illegality in the lower courts' judgments, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause for his absence and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.
- Can a party claim sufficient cause for absence based on a mistaken belief of suit consolidation when no formal consolidation order was passed?
- Does a court have grounds to interfere with an ex parte decree where the defendant's justification for absence is based on an unverified assumption?
- Is a Nikahnama lacking the signatures of the wife sufficient evidence to challenge a decree based on a later Nikahnama?
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- Application filed by the petitioner for setting aside ex parte decree for recovery of Rs.80,000,00 as dower passed in favour of the private respondent by the Family Court was dismissed on the ground that in sufficient cause was shown for absence on the date when the said decree was passed through he was served. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the first Appellate Court against which Constitutional petition filed by him has also been dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment dated 17.1.2003 against which leave is sought.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another suit was filed, by the private respondent for recovery of an amount cf Rs.100,000.00 on account of damages for giving her Talaq by the petitioner which was pending in some other Court and transferred on her application to the Court where her suit for recovery of dower amount was pending. The impression taken by the petitioner was that both the suits had been consolidated and since the said suit for damages was dismissed for non-prosecution, he assumed that the present suit had also been dismissed for non- prosecution, therefore, delay took place in making application for setting aside ex parte decree.
Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned, admitted that no formal order was passed for consolidation of both the suits by the Trial Court and that dates of hearing in both the suits Were different.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be granted opportunity to produce evidence in defence, for the suit of the private respondent was based on a fabricated Nikahnama of 1995 whereas Nikah actually took place in 1992 which is also evidenced by the Nikahnama copy of which has been placed on the record.
4. We are not inclined to interfere at this stage, for copy of Nikahnama of 1992 on which reliance has been placed, does not contain signatures of the private respondent.
5. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality therefore, this petition has no merits, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. .