2014 Y L R 781
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, J
MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD HUSSAIN—Petitioner
Versus
ZUNAIRA JABBAR—Respondent
Writ Petition No.18973 of 2013, decided on 10th October, 2013.
Tajmmal Abbas Rao for Petitioner.
Syed Taqi Raza Akbari for Respondent No.1.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Okara dated 31-5-2013 whereby the said court dismissed his appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court dated 19-3-2013 being barred by time.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned lower appellate court erred in law while passing the impugned order; that due to illness the petitioner could not file the appeal well within time; that reason disclosed by the petitioner was sufficient to condone the delay; that it is settled principle of law that no one should be condemned unheard and every matter should be decided on merit; that impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that throughout the lis behaviour of the petitioner remained contumacious; that no medical certificate regarding illness of the petitioner was appended with the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay, therefore, learned lower appellate court has rightly declined the request of the petitioner to condone delay and no occasion arises for this Court to intervene with the same in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Perusal of the record shows that throughout the proceedings before the learned Judge Family Court the conduct of the petitioner was not above board. After framing of the issues the petitioner disappeared from the court of learned Judge Family Court and he was proceeded against ex parte. However, ex parte proceedings against him were set aside by the learned Judge Family Court on his application subject to cost of Rs.800. Thereafter, again the petitioner disappared from the Court and vide order dated 22-1-2013 he was proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner again moved application for setting aside ex parte proceedings but later on he did not pursue the said application and the learned Judge Family Court was left with no other option except to pass ex parte judgment and decree against him on 19-3-2013. The petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree on 17-5-2013. Rule 22(1) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 provides as under:–
“[An appeal under section 14 shall be preferred within thirty days of the passing of the decree or decision excluding the time required for obtaining copies thereof;
Provided that the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause, extend the said period].”
Though the aforesaid rule empowered the appellate court to extend the time/condone the delay but it was subject to disclosure of sufficient cause. In the present case, the reason disclosed by the petitioner was not plausible. No medical certificate regarding his illness was accompanied with his application for condonation of delay. Furthermore, aforestated facts and circumstances show that the petitioner has been playing hide and seek with the courts. Not only before the learned Judge Family Court his conduct remained contumacious but also he failed to prefer appeal against the said order well within time. A decree for the recovery of maintenance allowance of the minor, which is the sole responsibility of the petitioner to maintain him has been passed against him but he is trying to avoid this responsibility on one pretext or the other. The person having such irresponsible attitude towards his minor son is not entitled for any equitable relief from this Court. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, learned lower appellate court has rightly declined to condone the delay and no occasion arises for this Court to intervene with the same in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition being meritless is dismissed with no order as to costs.
AG/M-262/L Petition dismissed.
