Interference in findings of facts,:– Principal of law discussed by Honable S.C.in case of Mst. Mehmooda Begum vs. TaJ Din can be invoked, wherein it has been laid down that findings of facts recorded by Tribunal of special Jurisdiction in respect of matters, exclusively within its competence, normally is not to be interfered unless, there has been serious mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence on part of Tribunal or there had been failure on its part to take into consideration material facts or to apply statutory law or any principle or rule of law. Both courts below have passed impugned Judgments without taking into consideration intelligent preference of minors, evidence on record, that petitioner can look after welfare of minors better than respondent No. 1, who being male member and of advance age, would not be in a position to look after female minor girls.  P.L.J.1998 Qta. 137 = 1998 MLD 1697.

 

Interim custody of minor – Mother of minor died at the time of her (minor's) birth – Grandmother of the minor girl obtained her custody from her father through habeas petition –  During proceedings before Guardian judge, matter was compromised and as per term of settlement, custody of minor had to be handed over to father on her attaining age of seven years – Father, later on contracted second marriage and had an issue from second wife – Deceased mother of minor was a serving lady – Share of minor in the amount left by her mother was deposited by father in his own account, which amount was recovered from him through decree of Court after issuing his warrant of arrest – During pendency of another suit for his appointment as guardian of person and property of minor, father made application for implementation of such compromise seeking custody of minor – Guardian judge allowed such application and directed grandmother to hand over custody of minor to her father –  Grandmother remained unsuccessful before Appellate Court and High Court – Held, paramount consideration in such-like cases was welfare of minor – Initially parties had settled the dispute through compromise, but later on due to material change in circumstances, question of welfare of minor had again cropped up in a more serious manner than before – Since birth minor had remained with maternal grandmother and suddenly to ask her to live in different atmosphere would be, if not impossible, at least very difficult for her – S.C allowed the appeal, set aside impugned order and permitted the minor to remain with grandmother till petition pending before Guardian judge was finally decided on merits after recording evidence of the parties. PLD 2002 S.C 267

 

Jurisdiction-District Judge was not a Family Court competent to hear and adjudicate upon matter due to total lack of jurisdiction, therefore, irrespective of fact that impugned order was passed by District Judge, same was appealable under S. 14 of Family Courts Act 1964 and not under S. 47of Guardians and Wards Act 1890-Court of Civil Judge being Family Court would have jurisdiction in relation to guardianship matters and custody of children would be deemed to be principal Court of Civil jurisdiction of .District. PLD 2003 Quetta 44

 

Whether in presence of step mother minor will be brought up in a congenial atmosphere. This factor per se is no ground for refusing custody of minor to father if, he is otherwise found entitled to it. If some safeguards are provided S.C. is of the opinion that this factor by itself does not-deprive father from obtaining custody of his minor son. In absence of any adverse circumstance S.C. cannot presume that appellant/father will not look after or bring up minor with love and affection or due care. If any time some circumstances seriously prejudicial to interest and welfare of minor are brought on record duly supported by tangible evidence respondent shall be free to move Court of competent Jurisdiction afresh on basis of a new cause of action or grievance. Appellant shall make minor available to live with his mother (respondent) at least two days every week till he attains majority. P.L.J.1996 SC (AJK) 230 = 1996 CLC 1534.

 

Minor children. Custody, District Judge observed that minors having attained age of 7 years respondent (father) was entitled to their custody. District Judge has failed to consider that fundamental criteria for deciding application for appointment of guardian and restoration of custody, is welfare of minors and personal law is subordinate to it. Custody of minors allowed to appellant (mother)  P.L.J.1994 AJK 33 = PLD 1994 AJ&K 1 = NLR 1994 Civil 331.

 

Minor daughter. Custody. Both courts below have merely focused attention primarily to fact that father had contracted second marriage and mother had not, but did not give due with to over-riding legal consideration of welfare of minor. Superiority of claims is relevant but deciding factor is always welfare of minor. Minor was being brought up by her paternal aunt and properly looked-after. Judgments of courts below are without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Petition accepted and custody of minor given to. petitioner (father)  P.L.J.1994 Note 77 at p. 51.

 

Modification of order passed earlier on compromise by Guardian Court – Mother of the minors was given custody and periodical meetings between the father and the minors were agreed to by the parties – Mother of the minors raised serious and shameful allegations against the father which pertained to the period of meeting with the minors-Guardian Court declined to modify the order passed earlier without making any inquiry into the matter and said decision of the Guardian Court was upheld by the Appellate Court – Plea raised by the father was that the Constitutional petition was not filed with clean hands – Validity – Finding with regard to truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the mother of the minors in her guardianship application was not recorded by the Court and unless the same was recorded it could not be held that the mother of the minors had not approached the High Court with clean hands or she was not entitled to equitable relief in the matter – Orders passed by the two Courts below were set aside by the High Court in circumstances, PLD 2001 Kar. 371  PLD 1967 SC 402; PLD 1970 Kar. 619; 1983 SCMR 606; 1985 SCMR 2066; PLD 1986 SC 14; 1989 MLD 3427; 1993 CLC 736 and PLD 1996 Kar. 174 ref. 1993 CLC 736; PLD 1996 Kar. 174; 1998 MLD 1271; 1996 CLC 1603; AIR 1936 Lah.1019; AIR 1930 Lah.250; AIR 1954 SC 82 and PLD 1963 Dacca 816 distinguished.

 

Modification or alteration of an earlier order – Guardian Court, power of – Scope – Order passed by Guardian Court in respect of custody of minor (consent order or otherwise) may be an order in the best interest and welfare of the minor at that point of time but due to certain future eventuality and subsequent developments the same, may not serve as such – It is for this reason that the Guardian Court has been empowered to modify, set aside or alter an earlier order, and pass an appropriate order at-any subsequent stage to safeguard the interest and welfare of the minor – Order passed earlier by Guardian Court with regard to custody of minor cannot operate as a bar of Jurisdiction for Guardian Court for all time to come. PLD 2001 Kar. 371

 

Mother of the minors was given custody and periodical meetings between the father and the minors were agreed to by the parties—Mother of the minors raised serious and shameful allegations against the father which pertained to the period of meeting with the minors-Guardian Court declined to modify the order passed earlier without making any inquiry into the matter and said decision of the Guardian Court was upheld by the Appellate Court—Plea raised by the father was that the Constitutional petition was not filed with clean hands—Validity—Finding with regard to truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the mother of the minors in her guardianship application was not recorded by the Court and unless the same was recorded it could not be held that the mother of the minors had not approached the High Court with clean hands or she was not entitled to equitable relief in the matter—Orders passed by the two Courts below were set aside by the High Court in circumstances, PLD 2001 Kar. 371 PLD 1967 SC 402; PLD 1970 Kar. 619; 1983 SCMR 606; 1985 SCMR 2066; PLD 1986 SC 14; 1989 MLD 3427; 1993 CLC 736 and PLD 1996 Kar. 174 ref. 1993 CLC 736; PLD 1996 Kar. 174; 1998 MLD 1271; 1996 CLC 1603; AIR 1936 Lah. 1019; AIR 1930 Lah. 250; AIR 1954 SC 82 and PLD 1963 Dacca 816 distinguished.

 

Mother leaving adultrous life & asking for forgiveness. Question of law and welfare of child. According, to Hassan Basri, right of mother custody does not stop if welfare of children is to remain in custody of mother. According to Kitab-al-Fiqah, Hizanat is lost when woman is adultrus, but if she has asked forgiveness, she will have right of custody. Both Courts below while non-­suiting petitioner on ground that she was prostitute have ignored most material and important aspect of this case that Mst. "R" married "B" and she was constrained to file writ petition against her mother contending that "B" had tried to rescue her from her sinful life, therefore, finding of Courts below are unsustainable. It is also established from evidence that minors were being maintained and educated by their mother and their educational certificate show that they were showing good results in institution. After marriage with "B" and after divorce with "S" and eventually she has married persons"" and according to her statement now she has offered her forgiveness from sinful life to God Almighty and she is never looking back to her past life and leading decent and respectful life, her children are being educated in good Institutions and they are enJoying fatherly love and affection from her husband. Courts below while nonSuiting Mst. "R" was not. Justified as "B" was conscious about after effects of his marriage with Mst. "R". He being man could have pulled her out of sinful life giving her all protection and decencies of matrimonial life and providing his children healthy atmosphere quite aware from social set up. He is most un-deserving person to be wali of minors and other relatives also stand disqualified to obtain custody of minors. Judgments and decree of both Courts below set aside minors shall remain in custody, direct supervision and control of mother as before.  P.L.J.2000 Lah. 2419 = 2000 MLD 1967.

 

Custody of minor (female suckling child) Father of minor was away to United States. In such a situation, mother was most suitable and appropriate guardian of female suckling child. Mere fact that father returned to Pakistan with intention to reside here permanently would not nullify impugned order. It shall, however, be open to father to prove during trial of petition under Section 25 0f Guardians and Wards Act, that he intends to' reside in Pakistan permanently and that welfare of minor would be promoted if her custody is allowed to him. No good ground to interfere with impugned orders.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 1671 = 1999 MLD 943.

 

Grandmother agreed to hand over custody of minor to father on her attaining age of seven years – Father thereafter contracted second marriage, who, had an issue from second wife – Father's application for custody of minor by implementing such compromise was accepted by Guardian judge, which order was upheld by Appellate Court and High Court – S.C granted leave to appeal to consider, whether in such circumstances, irrespective of settlement between the parties. Guardian judge was not bound under law to decide question of custody of minor keeping in view her welfare. PLD 2002 S.C 267

 

Mother was a prostitute. All Courts below found father to be entitled to custody of minors. Validity. Mother leaving adultrous life & asking for forgiveness. Whether right of Hizanat lost. Question of law and welfare of child. According, to Hassan Basri, right of mother custody does not stop if welfare of children is to remain in custody of mother. According to Kitab-al-Fiqah, Hizanat is lost when woman is adultrus, but if she has asked forgiveness, she will have right of custody. Both Courts below while non­suiting petitioner on ground that she was prostitute have ignored most material and important aspect of this case that Mst. "R" married "B" and she was constrained to file writ petition against her mother contending that "B" had tried to rescue her from her sinful life, therefore, finding of Courts below are unsustainable. It is also established from evidence that minors were being maintained and educated by their mother and their educational certificate show that they were showing good results in institution. After marriage with "B" and after divorce with "S" and eventually she has married persons"" and according to her statement now she has offered her forgiveness from sinful life to God Almighty and she is never looking back to her past life and leading decent and respectful life, her children are being educated in good Institutions and they are enJoying fatherly love and affection from her husband. Courts below while nonSuiting Mst. "R" was not. Justified as "B" was conscious about after effects of his marriage with Mst. "R". He being man could have pulled her out of sinful life giving her all protection and decencies of matrimonial life and providing his children healthy atmosphere quite aware from social set up. He is most un-deserving person to be wali of minors and other relatives also stand disqualified to obtain custody of minors. Judgments and decree of both Courts below set aside minors shall remain in custody, direct supervision and control of mother as before.  P.L.J.2000 Lah. 2419 = 2000 MLD 1967.

 

Paramount consideration. Status of respondent (Father) Father is also better as compared to petitioner-(mother) He is senior officer of Federal Govt. presently serving as Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and Sales Tax, Rawalpindi and he can easily bear expenses of schooling, boarding and lodging of minors at said leading institution of country and their better bringing up as compared to petitioner, who is statedly working as Teacher in some private institution. Transferring custody of minors at this stage will definitely effect their studies and it will.also cause set aback to them if they are shifted from Murree to Lah.Welfare of minors is of paramount importance and lies in keeping all three minors in present institution at Murree where they are studying satisfactorily and getting positions in their respective classes examination/Test. Impugned orders are based on valid reasons calling for no interference in constitutional petition. Findings of both courts below are supported by evidence on record and no illegality has been pointed out in impugned orders. Petition without merit accordingly dismissed.  P.L.J.1996 Lah. 577 = 1996 CLC 1603.

 

Whether living apart of minors in different environments is in their interest. Family is only Juncture where brothers and sisters live together under their parents and enjoy natural harmonious affection and love and share their small secrets of happiness. It is not in their interest to live apart from each other in different environments, under disputes and hatred which usually arise from result of broken homes.   P.L.J.1996 Lah. 571 = 1997 MLD 520.

 

Parties, imp-leading of -Wife on being divorced by husband applying to Family, Court for custody of her minor sons living with father-Husband s 'attendance before Family Court not secured‑‑Petitioner (uncle of minors) applying for being impleaded as a party to proceeding‑‑Parents of minors being alive and minors not in petitioner’s custody. Family Court, held, rightly rejected petitioner’s prayer -‑No question of law, far less of any public importance, being involved, petition dismissed. 1976 S C M R 261

 

Poverty of mother :– Mother seems firm and resolute to dedicate all her life to bring up her children and facing hard challenges of life for sake of her children and does not intend to marry in future. On the other hand, father who has remarried with a stranger lady is advocating cause of one of his relative to keep up custody of minors. Mere arguments that mother has no source of income cannot deprive her from custody of minor. Father is under duty of Law to maintain his children and enable them for better education, better future and good.health.  P.L.J.1996 Lah. 571 = 1997 MLD 520.

 

Powers of judge, Family Court to regulate its own proceedings, where circumstances so demand, in order to prevent course of justice being deflected from its true path—PLD 2003 Pesh. 63

 

Principle of preference of either parents. Whether splitting -up brothers and sisters desirable. Courts below have taken into consideration admitted fact that all three brothers are studying in Lawrence College Ghora Gali, Murree and are Studying in College Hostel. They are, therefore, enjoying company of each other which will promote their brotherly feelings interse and elder can look after youngsters. Provision of S. 17 of Guardian and Wards Act was followed by both Courts below which are perfectly in accordance with spirit of law. Welfare of minors lay in their remaining in same institution.   P.L.J.1996 Lah. 577 = 1996 CLC 1603.

 

Principles – Paramount consideration by the courts must be given to the welfare of minors. 2004 C L C 228

 

Senior Civil Judge (Judge Family Court) hearing and trying suit under S. 25, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Procedure adopted would be one under Guardians and Wards Act­-Order making or refusing to make order for return of a ward to custody of his guardian‑Appeal able to High Court under S. 47(c), Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Senior Civil Judge while hearing and trying suit under S. 25, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 description himself as Senior Civil Judge and not as Judge Family Court‑Mis‑description or non‑description, held, did not affect his jurisdiction. P L D 1972 Pesh. 1-P L D 1967 Lah. 977 and P L D 1969 Lah. 834 ref.         

 

Revision petition‑‑Petitioner, despite a period of more than two months having elapsed ever since, had not submitted to the direction contained in the appellate order‑­Petitioner, apart from the fact that he had thereby exposed himself to the liability of being proceeded against for disobedience of a lawful order passed by the Appellate Court had also rendered himself disentitled to the exercise of discretion in his favour by a Court of law in circumstances.  Revision is not maintainable against order of the Family Court. 1988 C L C 665 P L D 1971 Lah. 875, P L D 1972 Kar. 410; P L D 1981 SC 454 and P L D 1986 SC 14 ref.

 

Revisional jurisdiction of High Court against finding of guardianship cases‑‑No revisional jurisdiction available to be exercised by High Court against the judgments passed by the District Judges whether in the appellate or original jurisdiction in guardianship cases or cases under Family Courts Act.-1988 C L C 1 P L D 1971 Lah. 875; P L D 1972 Kar. 410; P L D 1986 SC 14 and P L D 1981 SC.454 rel.

 

Scope – Guardian Court, to ensure and safeguard the interest and welfare of the minor, can grant any relief while deciding guardianship application Substance and not the form of application was to be examined even if Court was found lacking the authority to grant relief in strict terms as prayed in the application, Samar Gul v. Central Government and others PLD 1986 SC 35 ref.

 

Where application under S.25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is brought before the Family Court, the Court in dealing with the matter has to follow the procedure prescribed in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 2001 S C M R 2000

 

Section 25, held, prescribes procedure of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to be followed by Guardian Judge and not procedure contained in such Act‑Mode of trial prescribed in Act XXXV of 1964‑Contains sweeping departures from mode of trial in suits under Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑Provisions of Act XXXV of 1964 regulating trial of guardianship cases‑To be followed by Family Courts‑Obligation imposed by S. 25 of Act XXXV of 1964 to follow procedure prescribed in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890‑An obligation imposed on Courts and not regulative of rights of parties after Family Courts became functus officio.-P L D 1981 S C454

 

Temporary custody. Beford execution of order of temporary custody of minor, mother of minor died and without passing any order in writing trial Court directed that her custody be given to her maternal grand mother. Now in presence of father, custody of minor could not be ordered to be given to maternal grand mother.  P.L.J.1999 Lah. 949.

 

Territorial jurisdiction, determination of-Provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, has overriding effect and question of territorial jurisdiction is to be decided under its provisions and rules framed thereunder-Provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, has no relevancy in deciding territorial jurisdiction in the matter relating to custody of minor.  Provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, has the overriding effect insofar as the matters included in Sched.-Family Court was‑ the forum which has to be approached in respect of matters relating to custody of minor being one listed item' in the Sched attached to West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. 2001 S C M R 2000-–  PLD 1981 SC 454; PLD 1969 SC 187 and PLD 1986 SC 14 ref.

 

Transfer of cases.-Provisions of S. 25. Act XXXV of 1964 read with provisions of S. 9, Act VIII of 1890. held, do not enlarge scope of S. 25-A so as to enable High Court to transfer a case from one Court to another and confer jurisdictions against S. 9, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.  1980 C L C 865-P L D 1971 Kar. 897 ; P L D 1970 Lah. 52 and P L D 1978 Lah. 518 distinguished.

 

Trial Court had declared mother of minors to be the guardian of their person and property. District Judge, however, declared minor's father to be the guardian of person and property of minors and directed that custody of minors be handed over to him. Validity. Petitioner (mother) had annexed detailed list of cases which .had been registered against respondent and in which he has been convicted also. No rebuttal was placed on record from respondent's side that he was not involved, convicted and as not under trial in cases detailed in the list. Respondent did not mention in Court his income or his source of income. Neither any document regarding ownership of property was produced nor any other document showing that he had been deriving any income from said property was produced nor any proof that he was working anywhere was produced before Court. Petitioner, however, has placed on record certified copies of certificates from various educational institutions that she had been serving in those schools as a teacher and that at present she was teaching Fauji Foundation School. Petitioner had also placed on record certificate of tuition fee of minor children being paid by petitioner as also certificate showing balance of specified amount in her account in Habib Bank Ltd.. In addition to salary she has been giving tuition to students and earning hand some amount. Minor children have been admitted in best available schools, they are getting proper education and being looked after properly. Respondent in his statement before Court had -admitted that petitioner was graduate and has been serving in FauJi Foundation School and that Children were also studying in that school. Welfare of children being of fundamental importance, preference should be given to their welfare. Respondent although is natural guardian of minors yet his right was subordinate to welfare of minors. Evidence on record would suggest that minors were being well-educated and looked after by petitioner mother who had been supporting them since their birth while respondent had not spent a penny on them. Nothing on record was brought to indicate that petitioner was a woman of bad character. On the contrary she was graduate and teacher in a school of good standard and leading respectable life, welfare of minors, therefore, lies with petitioner (mother) and she was, thus, entitled to their custody.  P.L.J.2000 Pesh. 175 = PLD 200 Q Pesh. 23.

 

Welfare of minor, a prime consideration and basic criterion – For deciding the question and other issues relating thereto, welfare of minor is the paramount consideration for Guardian Court – Any issue regarding the custody of minor is to be assessed, examined and measured by the Guardian Court on such yardstick and the Court has to record a definite finding on the point before passing any order in the matter PLD 2001 Kar. 371

 

District Judge observed that minors having attained age of 7 years respondent (father) was entitled to their custody. District Judge has failed to consider that fundamental criteria for deciding application for appointment of guardian and restoration of custody, is welfare of minors and personal law is subordinate to it. Custody of minors allowed to appellant (mother)  P.L.J.1994 AJK 33 = PLD 1994 AJ&K 1 = NLR 1994 Civil 331.

 

There is no substitute for a mother especially when father has re-married and no step mother can give affection and love* which real mother can give to her children. Respondent (mother of children) seems quite determined, resolute and firm in her decision to bring up children even through hard work. She was evenready to forgo her right .of claiming maintenance of minors. She does not intend to marry in future, whereas father has remarried with a stranger lady. Under such a situation scales of Justice tilt in favour of mother. Nature has made a woman most adorable person on globe as "a mother". Mother and child enJoy natural sense of safety and protection. It is not in the interest and welfare of minors to be separated from each other devoid of love and affection which they enJoy while living together. No infirmity in Judgment of lower Appellate Court.  P.L.J.1996 Lah. 813 = 1997 MLD 520.

 

Whether in exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction, interference in findings of facts, can be made by High Court. Principal of law discussed by Hon-able S.C. in case of Mst. Mehmooda Begum vs. TaJ Din can be invoked, wherein it has been laid down that findings of facts recorded by Tribunal of special Jurisdiction in respect of matters, exclusively within its competence, normally is not to be interfered unless, there has been serious mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence on part of Tribunal or there had been failure on its part to take into consideration material facts or to apply statutory law or any principle or rule of law. Both courts below have passed impugned Judgments without taking into consideration intelligent preference of minors, evidence on record, that petitioner can look after welfare of minors better than respondent No. 1, who being male member and of advance age, would not be in a position to look after female minor girls.  P.L.J.1998 Qta. 137 = 1998 MLD 1697.

 

Whether District Court was competent to hear appeal against order of Family Court. Application for custody of minor filed u/S. 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 had been challenged on ground that application having been decided by Family Court in capacity of District Court, appeal against order of Family Court should have been field before High Court and not before District Court. Validity. Provisions of S. 14(1), West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had overriding effect over provisions of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Provisions of S. 47(1)(c) of Guardian and Ward Act, 1890, no doubt, had provided that appeal against order passed under S. 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 lay to High Court, but S. 14(l)of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 which started with words "notwithstanding anything provided in any other law for time being in force", had provided that Judgment and decree passed in Family Court, would be appealable to District Court if such Judgment and decree were not passed by District Judge or additional District Judge. Application under S. 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, having been decided by Civil Judge as Family Court not by District Judge or Addl. District Judge as Family Court appeal certainly would lie before District Court under S. 14(l)of Family Courts Act, 1964 which had overriding effect due to non obstante clause over provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.  P.L.J.1999 Qta. 299 = PLD 1999 Qta. 29.

 

Whether mother has preferential right of Hizanat. It is admitted fact that there is no, substitute for mother especially when father has re-married and no step mother can give affection and love which real mother can give to her children. Respondent seems quite determined, resolute and firm in her decision to bring up children even through hard work and give them proper education,, care, love and affection and she was ever ready to forego her right of claiming maintenance of minors. Mother and child enjoying natural sense of safety and protection and understanding and this sense which normally prevails between this relationship and keep one day old child quite safe, by side of a mother sound asleep. Custody of mother is taken away only where strong grounds exist otherwise.  P.L.J.1996 Lah. 571 = 1997 MLD 520.

 

Mother of minors, having contracted second marriage with person not related to minors within prohibited degrees has lost her right of Hizanat. Petition dismissed.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 146 = 1998 CLC 846.

 

Mother of minors, having contracted second marriage with person not related to minors within prohibited degrees has lost her right of Hizanat. Petition dismissed.  P.L.J.1998 Lah. 146 = 1998 CLC 846.

 

Word "Procedure"‑Meaning‑Intention of Legislature would be defeated if ordinary meanings of word "procedure" are enlarged so as to include `provisions relating to appeal-View in Parveen v. Muhammad Ashar P L D 1975 Lab. 334, held, not a valid view.‑  P L D 1984 Lah. 332  P L D 1981 S C 454 fol.

 

Writ against interim Order :– During appeal an application to produce additional evidence was filed which was dismissed. Writ against. In a writ petition, no interference is called for, unless it can be shown that order passed by lower Court suffered from some Jurisdictional defect. Evidence brought by parties on record was sufficient enough to enable lower court to decide fate of application. Evidence sought to be produced was admittedly an additional evidence which cannot be produced as a matter of right. Both parties had already executed their rights to produce their respective evidence. If the Court feels in-capacitated for lack of sufficient evidence to enable it to effectually dispose of controversy before it, it can permit any of parties to produce additional evidence, whereas in present case it is petitioner who is insisting to produce additional evidence. Npt being requirement of court,. additional evidence cannot be allowed. Appellate court has committed no illegality by refusing application. P.L.J.1999 Lah. 938.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Case Law