Zewrat ka dawa in favour of wife.
 |
| Zewrat ka dawa in favour of wife. |
زیورات کے معاملے میں یہ دعویٰ کیا گیا تھا:
1. **زیورات کا دعویٰ:**
مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 (مسٹ سیسیدہ زونہ نقوی) نے فیملی کورٹ میں دعویٰ کیا کہ اسے شادی کے دوران جہیز کے طور پر سونے کے زیورات ملے تھے، جنہیں واپس لینے کا حق ہے۔
2. **عدالتی فیصلہ:**
فیملی کورٹ نے 10 اپریل 2023 کو فیصلہ سنایا، جس میں یہ حکم دیا کہ زیورات کی واپسی کی جائے۔ عدالت نے مدعا علیہ کی گواہی اور شواہد کی بنیاد پر یہ نتیجہ اخذ کیا کہ زیورات اسے دئیے گئے تھے اور اس نے انہیں واپس نہ کیا۔
3. **درخواست گزار کا اعتراض:**
درخواست گزار نے موقف اختیار کیا کہ مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 نے سونے کے زیورات ساتھ لے لئے تھے، اور اصل رسید بھی پیش نہیں کی گئی۔ ان کے مطابق، زیورات کا کوئی ٹھوس ثبوت موجود نہیں۔
4. **فیصلہ:**
درخواست گزار کی اپیل اور آئینی درخواست میں یہ اعتراضات چیلنج کیے گئے، لیکن عدالت نے یہ فیصلہ برقرار رکھا کہ زیورات کے دعوے کی بنیاد پر مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 کا موقف درست تھا۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی کہا کہ زیورات کی واپسی کے معاملے میں عدالت نے تمام شواہد کا جائزہ لیا تھا اور کوئی فنی یا قانونی نقص نہیں پایا۔
**معاملے کی تفصیلات:**
1. **شادی:**
درخواست گزار، سید راہیل احمد، نے 27 دسمبر 2019 کو مسٹ سیسیدہ زونہ نقوی سے شادی کی۔
2. **مقدمہ:**
اختلافات کی بنا پر، مسٹ سیسیدہ زونہ نقوی نے 2022 میں فیملی کورٹ میں شادی کے فسخ، نان نفقہ، اور جہیز کے سامان و سونے کے زیورات کی واپسی کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔
3. **فیصلہ:**
فیملی کورٹ نے 10 اپریل 2023 کو درخواست گزار کے خلاف فیصلہ سنایا، جس میں اس کی شادی کے فسخ، نان نفقہ، اور جہیز کے سامان کی واپسی کے حق میں حکم دیا۔
4. **اپیل:**
درخواست گزار نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف 65/2023 فیملی اپیل دائر کی جو 9 مارچ 2024 کو ضلعی عدالت نے مسترد کر دی۔
5. **آئینی درخواست:**
درخواست گزار نے ہائی کورٹ میں آئینی درخواست دائر کی، جس میں ہائی کورٹ نے 3 اپریل 2024 کو درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔
6. **اعتراضات:**
درخواست گزار نے اعتراض کیا کہ فیملی کورٹ میں سونے کے زیورات کی اصل رسید پیش نہیں کی گئی اور مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 نے سونے کے زیورات گھر چھوڑتے وقت ساتھ لے لیے تھے۔
**سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان**
*(اپیلٹ دائرہ اختیار)*
**سیول پٹیشن نمبر 473-K/2024**
**درخواست گزار:** سید راہیل احمد
**مدعا علیہ:** مسٹ سیسیدہ زونہ نقوی اور دیگر
**تاریخ:** 26.07.2024
**دعوی:**
درخواست گزار نے ہائی کورٹ کے حکم مورخہ 03.04.2024 کے خلاف درخواست دائر کی ہے، جس میں ان کی آئینی درخواست کو مسترد کیا گیا تھا۔ درخواست گزار کا موقف ہے کہ فیملی کورٹ کے فیصلے میں شواہد کی غلط تشریح ہوئی ہے، خاص طور پر سونے کے زیورات کی اصل رسید پیش نہ کرنے پر۔
**جواب دعوی:**
مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 کے وکیل نے دفاع کیا کہ ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ درست ہے اور اس میں تمام قانونی اور فنی پہلوؤں پر غور کیا گیا ہے۔ درخواست گزار کی فنی اعتراضات ہائی کورٹ کی اختیارات سے باہر ہیں، کیونکہ فیملی کورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف مزید اپیل کا حق نہیں ہے۔
**آرڈر:**
سپریم کورٹ نے ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا اور درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ہائی کورٹ نے درست طور پر فنی مسائل میں مداخلت سے گریز کیا، اور فیملی کورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف مزید اپیل کا کوئی حق نہیں ہے۔
**جج**
**جج**
کراچی،
26 جولائی، 2024
**سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان**
*(اپیلٹ دائرہ اختیار)*
**موجودہ:**
مسٹر جسٹس سید حسن اظہر رضوی
مسٹر جسٹس عقیل احمد عباسی
**سیول پٹیشن نمبر 473-K/2024**
[ہائی کورٹ آف سندھ، کراچی کے حکم مورخہ 03.04.2024 کے خلاف، C.P.No.S-378/2024]
**درخواست گزار:**
سید راہیل احمد
**مدعا علیہ:**
مسٹ سیسیدہ زونہ نقوی اور دیگر
**درخواست گزار کے وکیل:**
مسٹر نوید علی، اے ایس سی
عبیدہ پروین چندر، اے او آر
**مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 کے وکیل:**
مسز رضیہ دانش، اے ایس سی
مسز پیرا زفر، جڈیشل لا کلرک
**سننے کی تاریخ:**
26.07.2024
**فیصلہ**
**مسٹر جسٹس سید حسن اظہر رضوی:**
1. اس درخواست کے ذریعے درخواست گزار نے ہائی کورٹ سندھ کے مورخہ 03.04.2024 کے حکم ("متنازعہ حکم") کو چیلنج کیا ہے جس میں ان کی آئینی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا گیا تھا۔
2. مختصر یہ کہ درخواست گزار نے 27.12.2019 کو مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 (مسٹ سیسیدہ زونہ نقوی) سے شادی کی۔ اختلافات کی بنا پر، مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 نے ایک مقدمہ (مقدمہ نمبر 726/2022) نکاح کے فسخ، نان نفقہ اور جہیز کے سامان اور سونے کے زیورات کی واپسی کے لیے دائر کیا جو کہ 10.04.2023 کو ٹرائل کورٹ نے فیصلہ سنایا۔ درخواست گزار نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل (فیملی اپیل نمبر 65/2023) ضلعی عدالت کے جج کے پاس دائر کی جو کہ 09.03.2024 کو مسترد کردی گئی۔ درخواست گزار نے اس فیصلے کو ہائی کورٹ میں آئینی درخواست (C.P.No.S-378/2024) کے ذریعے چیلنج کیا جسے ہائی کورٹ نے بھی مسترد کر دیا، اور اب یہ درخواست سپریم کورٹ میں ہے۔
3. درخواست گزار کا کہنا ہے کہ متنازعہ حکم میں شواہد کی غلط تشریح کی گئی ہے، خاص طور پر یہ کہ سونے کے زیورات کا اصل رسید عدالت میں پیش نہیں کیا گیا بلکہ صرف پالش کا رسید پیش کیا گیا جو کہ غیر اہم ہے۔ درخواست گزار کا یہ بھی کہنا ہے کہ مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 نے گھر چھوڑتے وقت سونے کے زیورات ساتھ لے لیے تھے۔
4. مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 کے وکیل کے مطابق، متنازعہ حکم درست اور تمام قانونی اور فنی پہلوؤں پر غور کیا گیا ہے۔
5. ہم نے دلائل اور ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لیا ہے۔ درخواست گزار کی طرف سے اٹھائے گئے مسائل فنی نوعیت کے ہیں جن پر ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلٹ کورٹ نے غور کیا ہے۔ ہائی کورٹ نے درست طور پر فنی مسائل میں مداخلت سے گریز کیا۔
6. فیملی کورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل کرنے کا حق سیکشن 14 فیملی کورٹ ایکٹ 1964 کے تحت محدود ہے، اور ہائی کورٹ کے پاس مزید اپیل کا حق نہیں ہے۔
7. آئین کے آرٹیکل 199 کے تحت ہائی کورٹ فنی فیصلوں کا جائزہ نہیں لے سکتی۔ ہائی کورٹ کا کردار اس بات کو یقینی بنانا ہے کہ کیا عدالتیں اپنے دائرہ اختیار میں کام کر رہی ہیں، اور یہ فنی مسائل پر نظرثانی نہیں کر سکتی۔
8. قانون ساز نے فیملی قانون کے مقدمات کے فیصلے کی آخری نوعیت کی وضاحت کی ہے، تاکہ لمبی مقدمہ بازی کو روکا جا سکے۔
9. ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلٹ کورٹ نے شواہد کا جامع جائزہ لیا ہے، اور کوئی واضح غلطی یا شواہد کی غلط تشریح نہیں ملی۔
10. لہذا، متنازعہ حکم برقرار ہے، اور ہائی کورٹ نے تمام قانونی اور فنی پہلوؤں پر غور کیا ہے۔
11. درخواست کو مسترد کیا جاتا ہے اور اجازت سے انکار کیا جاتا ہے۔
**جج**
**جج**
کراچی،
26 جولائی، 2024
**رپورٹنگ کے لیے منظور شدہ**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Civil Petition No.473-K of 2024
[Against the Order dated 03.04.2024 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in
C.P.No.S-378 of 2024]
Syed Raheel Ahmed
…Petitioner(s)
Versus
Mst. Syeda Zona Naqvi and others
…Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Naveed Ali, ASC
Abida Parveen Channar, AOR
For Respondent No.1
Research Conducted by
:
:
Mrs. Razia Danish, ASC
Ms. Paras Zafar, Judicial Law Clerk
Date of Hearing
: 26.07.2024.
JUDGMENT
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.- Through this petition,
the petitioner has assailed the Order dated 03.04.2024 (“the
impugned Order”), passed by the High Court of Sindh (“High
Court”) in C.P.No.S-378 of 2024, whereby the constitutional
petition filed by him was dismissed.
2.
Facts in brief are that petitioner contracted a marriage
with respondent No.1 (Mst. Syeda Zona Naqvi) on 27.12.2019. On
account of estranged relationship, respondent No.1 instituted a
suit( Suit No.726/2022) for dissolution of marriage, maintenance, and
recovery of dowry articles and gold ornaments, before learned XIIth
Family Judge, Karachi, Central (“Trial Court”), which was decreed
vide judgment dated 10.04.2023. Against this decision, the
Civil Petition No.473-K of 2024 -2-
petitioner filed Appeal (Family Appeal No.65 of 2023) before the
Additional District Judge- IV, Karachi Central (“Appellate court”)
which was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.03.2024. The
petitioner challenged the said decision by filing a constitutional
petition (C.P.No.S-378 of 2024) in the High Court, which too met the
fate of dismissal vide impugned order, hence this petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
impugned order suffers from misreading and non-reading of the
evidence; that original receipt of gold ornaments had not been
submitted by the respondent No.1 before the trial court, rather
only receipt of polishing of the gold ornaments had been adduced
in evidence which does not carry any evidentiary value; that
respondent No.1 herself carried the gold ornaments while leaving
house, thus, decisions rendered by lower fora may be set aside.
4.
On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.1
while defending the impugned order contends that impugned order
is well reasoned and has considered all factual and legal aspects of
the matter.
5.
We have heard the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on
record with their able assistance.
6.
All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner pertain to the factual controversies which have been
discussed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court,
being the fact-finding fora, therefore, learned High Court has
rightly refrained from delving into the factual disputes. The High
Court is not vested with the jurisdiction to act as a court of appeal
against Family Court decisions in the absence of specific statutory
provisions conferring such a right of appeal in family cases.
Civil Petition No.473-K of 2024 -3-
7.
In the Family Law, the right of appeal has been
provided under section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, which is
reproduced herein-below:-
14. Appeals.―(1) Notwithstanding anything provided in
any other law for the time being in force, a decision given
or a decree passed by a Family Court shall be appealable―
(a) to the High Court, where the Family Court is presided
over by a District Judge, an Additional District Judge or a
person notified by Government to be of the rank and
status of a District Judge or an Additional District Judge;
and
(b) to the District Court, in any other case.
(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by Family
Court―
(a) for dissolution of marriage, except in the case of
dissolution for reasons specified in clause (a) of item (viii)
of section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act,
1939;
(b) for dower or dowry not exceeding rupees thirty
thousand;
(c) for maintenance of rupees 2 one thousand or less per
month.
(3) No appeal or revision shall lie against an interim order
passed by a Family Court.
(4) The appellate Court referred to in sub-section (1) shall
dispose of the appeal within a period of four months.”
[Emphasis added]
Bare perusal of the above section reveals that decision of
Family Court can be challenged only once before the District Court
as the only appellate forum and no further right of appeal has been
provided against the decision of such appellate court. In the case
at hand, neither the Family Court was presided over by a District
Judge or Additional District Judge nor any person notified by
Government to be of the rank and status of a District Judge or
Additional District Judge, therefore, the appeal against a decision
or decree of Family Court was competent before the District Court
or District Judge, which was conclusive and final. The perusal of
section 14 ibid does not in any manner, whatsoever, envisage any
right to appeal against the decision of appellate court in the High
Court indirectly by filing a constitutional petition.
8.
Under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”), the High Court cannot
Civil Petition No.473-K of 2024 -4-
sit as a court of appeal for the purpose of addressing factual
controversies. In the case of Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain,1this
Court has ruled that:-
"It is well settled principle that right of appeal is a creature
of the statute and it is not to be assumed that there is
right of appeal in every matter brought before a Court for
its consideration. The right is expressly given by a statute
or some authority equivalent to a statute such as a rule
taking the force of a statute. Therefore, existence of right
of appeal cannot be assumed on any a priori ground. This
is in sharp contrast with the right to sue..."
[Emphasis supplied]
9.
It is a trite law that when a statute does not grant the
right to appeal against certain orders; those orders cannot be
contested by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High
Court. This court in the case of President, All Pakistan Women
Association, Peshawar Cantt.v.Muhammad Akbar Awan And
others,2 has discussed this aspect and ruled that:-
"It is settled law that when the Statute does not provide
the right of appeal against certain orders, the same cannot
be challenged by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of
the High Court In order to gain a similar objective. Where
a Statute Has expressly barred a remedy which is not
available to a party under the Statute, it cannot be sought
indirectly by resort to the constitutional jurisdiction of the
High Court."
[Emphasis supplied]
10.
This court has time and again delved into the question
of invocation of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the
constitution against appellate decisions and observed that in such
circumstances the jurisdiction of High Court is limited and
concerned only with whether or not the courts below acted within
the jurisdiction. If such a court has the jurisdiction to decide a
matter, it is considered competent to make a decision, regardless
of whether the decision is right or wrong and even if the said
decision is considered to be incorrect, it would not automatically
1 [PLD 1975 SC 457]
2 [2020 SCMR 260]
Civil Petition No.473-K of 2024 -5-
render it as being without lawful authority so as to invoke
constitutional jurisdiction.
11.
This court in the case of Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and
another v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani and another,3 has elucidated the
intent behind exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Article 199 of the
Constitution and held as under:
“8. The object of exercising jurisdiction under Article 199
of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973 ("Constitution") is to foster justice, preserve rights
and to right the wrong. The appraisal of evidence is
primarily the function of the Trial Court and, in this case,
the Family Court which has been vested with exclusive
jurisdiction. In constitutional jurisdiction when the
findings are based on mis-reading or non-reading of
evidence, and in case the order of the lower fora is found
to be arbitrary, perverse, or in violation of law or evidence,
the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction as a corrective
measure. If the error is so glaring and patent that it may
not be acceptable, then in such an eventuality the High
Court can interfere when the finding is based on
insufficient evidence, mis-reading of evidence, nonconsideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption
of fact, patent errors of law, consideration of inadmissible
evidence, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, arbitrary
exercise of power and where an unreasonable view on
evidence has been taken.”
Moreover, in the case of Shajar Islam v. Muhammad
Siddique,4 this Court has clarified that the High Court should
avoid interference in factual findings based on evidence, even if
those findings are incorrect. The High Court should not disturb
factual determinations through a reassessment of evidence within
its constitutional jurisdiction or use this jurisdiction as a
substitute for appeals or revisions. Moreover, any interference with
the findings of fact by the lower fora was beyond the scope of the
High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
Recently, this legal position was reaffirmed by this court in the
3 [2023 SCMR 246]
4 [PLD 2007 SC 45]
Civil Petition No.473-K of 2024 -6-
case of Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari & others5, wherein it
has been held that:-
“3. Heard and the relevant record perused. The issue
before us pertains to the findings of the High Court in a
petition whereby the constitutional jurisdiction of the High
Court was invoked. Constitutional jurisdiction of the High
Court, as provided in Article 199 of the Constitution, is
well-defined and its invocation is limited in scope against
appellate decisions. The extent to which it can be invoked
has been assessed by this Court over the course of several
decades. In Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar (PLD
1974 SC 139), this Court held that High Court in such
cases is only concerned with whether or not the courts
below acted within its jurisdiction. If such a court has the
jurisdiction to decide a matter, it is considered competent
to make a decision, regardless of whether the decision is
right or wrong and even if the said decision is considered
to be incorrect, it would not automatically render it as
being without lawful authority so as to invoke High
Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. However, in 1987, this
Court deviated from its view in the case of Utility Stores
Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour
Appellate Tribunal (PLD 1987 SC 447) where it expressed
that where the lower fora makes an error of law in
deciding a matter, it becomes a jurisdictional issue since
the same is only vested with the jurisdiction to decide a
particular matter rightly, therefore, such decision can be
quashed under constitutional jurisdiction as being in
excess of aw as in terms of Article 4 of the Constitution, it
is a right of every individual to be dealt with in accordance
with law and when law has not been correctly or properly
observed below, it becomes a case proper for interference
by a High Court in exercise of its constitutional
jurisdiction.”
[Emphasis Added]
12.
In the realm of family law, the Legislature has
intentionally refrained from granting the right of appeal to the High
Court from decisions rendered by appellate courts. This deliberate
omission indicates a purposeful legislative strategy to bring family
litigation to a definitive conclusion. By precluding the possibility of
further appeal to the High Court, the Legislature is effectively
aiming to prevent prolonged family disputes, ensuring that
appellate court rulings are conclusive and that family law matters
are resolved with definitive closure.
5 [2023 SCMR 1434]
Civil Petition No.473-K of 2024 -7-
13.
This Court in the case of Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara and
others,6 has held that:
“7. … The legislature intended to place a full stop on the
family litigation after it was decided by the appellate court.
However, we regretfully observe that the High Courts
routinely exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973 as a substitute of appeal or revision and
more often the purpose of the statute i.e., expeditious
disposal of the cases is compromised and defied. No
doubt, there may be certain cases where the intervention
could be justified but a great number falls outside this
exception. Therefore, it would be high time that the High
Courts prioritise the disposal of family cases by
constituting special family benches for this purpose.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Therefore, in absence of any express right to appeal, the
decisions of appellate court pertaining to family matters are
considered to be final and conclusive. This has been held by this
court in the case of Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari & others,7
wherein it has been held that:-
7. The right to appeal is a statutory creation, either
provided or not provided by the legislature; if the law
intended to provide for two opportunities of appeal, it
would have explicitly done so. In the absence of a second
appeal, the decision of the appellate court is considered
final on the facts and it is not for High Court to offer
another opportunity of hearing, especially in family cases
where the legislature’s intent to not prolong the dispute is
clear. The purpose of this approach is to ensure efficient
and expeditious resolution of legal disputes. However, if
the High Court continues to entertain constitutional
petitions against appellate court orders, under Article 199
of the Constitution, it opens floodgates to appellate
litigation. Closure of litigation is essential for a fair and
efficient legal system, and the courts should not
unwarrantedly make room for litigants to abuse the
process of law. Once a matter has been adjudicated upon
on fact by the trial and the appellate courts, constitutional
courts should not exceed their powers by re-evaluating the
facts or substituting the appellate court's opinion with
their own - the acceptance of finality of the appellate
court’s findings is essential for achieving closure in legal
proceedings conclusively resolving disputes, preventing
unnecessary litigation, and upholding the legislature's
intent to provide a definitive resolution through existing
appeal mechanisms.”
[Emphasis supplied]
14.
In the present case, the learned Trial Court while
discussing the issue of disputed gold ornaments has elaborately
6 [2023 SCMR 413]
7 [2023 SCMR 1434]
Civil Petition No.473-K of 2024 -8-
taken into consideration the evidence of parties and observed
that:-
“10. The plaintiff further claims recovery of dowry articles
and gold ornaments. Even before framing of the issues,
bailiff of the Court was appointed and almost all the dowry
articles were recovered and the same were restored to the
plaintiff now what left are only gold ornaments? In this
regard, the plaintiff examined herself and then she also
produced her witness in support of her contentions. She
and her brother in their affidavit in evidence have deposed
that plaintiff was given traditional family gold ornaments
which belong to her deceased mother. Hence, the plaintiff
has somehow established her claim.
11. Whereas, the defendant on one hand, in his written
statement has denied receiving gold ornaments and on the
other hand, during cross examination has admitted that
gold set was given to her after marriage. His admission
has further strengthened the version of plaintiff hence;
there is no denial that the plaintiff did not receive gold
ornaments. Now the only question is whether the plaintiff
took her gold ornaments with her at the time of leaving
her husband's house or not? To establish this aspect, the
plaintiff has deposed that she left defendant's house to see
her sister's newly born baby. And in normal course of
events this was not the situation when any woman may
take or use her gold ornaments. On the other hand, the
defendant himself admitted this aspect by saying that she
left his house in his absence. This means that he did not
see plaintiff taking away gold ornaments. The defendant
even did not produce any single witness to prove his
contention to the extent of gold ornaments. He could have
produced his mother who might have been available at
home at the time when plaintiff left his house but he did
not. Therefore, the issue under discussion is also
answered in affirmative.”
Thus, record reveals that all factual controversies were
evaluated by the learned Trial Court and Appellate court and the
said findings were rightly upheld by the learned High Court.
15.
Three fora below have examined and discussed the
evidence adduced by the parties and we do not find any misreading
or non-reading of the evidence.
16.
In view thereof, we find that impugned order is wellreasoned and the High Court has considered all the legal and
factual aspects of the matter. The petitioner has failed to make out
a case warranting any interference.
17.
Consequently, this petition, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed and leave refused
Civil Petition No.473-K of 2024 -9-
18.
Above are the reasons of our short order pronounced
on even date.
Judge
Judge
Karachi,
26th July, 2024
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Comments
Post a Comment