Additional evidence application in family case. A constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court is that speedy justice under the Family Act, 1964 is the primary objective, and allowing delay in production of documents would defeat the purpose of speedy adjudication of the case - the Courts below had dismissed the petition for proper reasons, And the court did not find any legal flaw in their decisions. 2024 C L C 375

Additional evidence application in family case.
 A constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court is that speedy justice under the Family Act, 1964 is the primary objective, and allowing delay in production of documents would defeat the purpose of speedy adjudication of the case - the Courts below had dismissed the petition for proper reasons, And the court did not find any legal flaw in their decisions.
2024 C L C 375

مندرجہ بالا مقدمہ "محمد نواز بمقابلہ ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج، حافظ آباد وغیرہ" میں، لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے 5 اکتوبر 2023 کو فیصلہ سنایا جس میں درخواست گزار نے ایک دستاویز پیش کرنے کی تاخیر پر اعتراض اٹھایا۔ کیس میں درج نکات کا خلاصہ کچھ یوں ہے:

(ا) فیملی کورٹس ایکٹ، 1964 کے تحت تحریری جواب کے ساتھ دستاویزات نہ لگانا

فیملی کورٹس ایکٹ، 1964 کی دفعہ 9(2) کے تحت یہ لازمی ہے کہ اگر مدعا علیہ کسی دستاویز پر انحصار کر رہا ہے جو اس کے قبضے میں ہے، تو اسے تحریری جواب کے ساتھ پیش کرے۔ اگرچہ اس دفعہ میں لفظ "کرے گا" استعمال ہوا ہے، لیکن عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ یہ شرط لازمی نہیں ہے جس سے انحراف کرنے پر کسی قسم کی سزا یا قانونی نتائج عائد ہوں۔ اس لیے فیملی کورٹ کو اختیار ہے کہ وہ مدعا علیہ کو بعد میں دستاویز پیش کرنے کی اجازت دے سکتی ہے، بشرطیکہ فیملی کورٹس ایکٹ کا مقصد یعنی فوری انصاف متاثر نہ ہو۔

(ب) اضافی ثبوت پیش کرنے کے لیے درخواست مسترد کرنا

اس مقدمے میں، درخواست گزار نے کیس کے آخری مراحل میں اضافی ثبوت یعنی "واپسی جہیز کا رسید" پیش کرنے کی اجازت مانگی۔ عدالت نے مشاہدہ کیا کہ درخواست گزار کے پاس یہ دستاویز پہلے سے موجود تھی لیکن اسے بروقت پیش نہیں کیا گیا۔ اس کے بعد، دستاویز پیش کرنے کا مقصد مقدمے میں موجود خامیوں کو پورا کرنے کی کوشش سمجھا گیا۔ عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ اس مرحلے پر دستاویزات کی اجازت دینا مدعی کے حقوق کو نقصان پہنچا سکتا ہے اور فیملی کورٹس ایکٹ کا مقصد، یعنی تنازعات کا فوری حل، متاثر ہوگا۔

نتیجہ

عدالت نے دونوں ذیلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو درست قرار دیا کہ انہوں نے درخواست گزار کو اضافی ثبوت پیش کرنے کی اجازت نہ دے کر جائز عمل اختیار کیا۔ ہائی کورٹ نے اس آئینی درخواست کو ابتدائی سماعت میں ہی خارج کر دیا۔

2024 C L C 375

[Lahore]

Before Raheel Kamran, J

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ----Petitioner

Versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HAFIZABAD and others----Respondents

Writ Petition No.65227 of 2023, decided on 5th October, 2023.

(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---

----Ss.5, 9 & 12-A---Failure of the defendant to attach document(s) along with written-statement---Belated filing and production of document---Provisions of family laws---Principle of purposive interpretation---Section 9(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 ('the Act, 1964') clearly provides that where a defendant relies upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it or copy thereof in the Court along with the written statement---Subsection (4) of S.9 of the Act, 1964 requires copies of the documents referred to in subsection (2) to be given to the plaintiff along with the written statement on the date fixed for that purpose---Although the word "shall" has been used in subsections (2) & (4) of S.9 of the Act 1964, however, that does not make said provisions mandatory thereby rendering non-compliance thereof absolutely fatal so as to prevent a defendant from belatedly filing and producing in evidence any document that was not filed along with the written statement; the same is primarily for the reason that no such penal consequences have been specified by the Legislature in Section 9 of the Act 1964---It, thus, remains discretionary for the Family Court to permit a defendant to file any document, deliver a copy thereof to the plaintiff that was not filed along with the written statement and produce the same in evidence in a suit---Question then arises what are the principles governing the exercise of such discretion by the Family Court---A purposive rather than literal approach to the interpretation is to be adopted while interpreting provisions of the Act, 1964, therefore, an interpretation which advances purpose of the Act, 1964 is to be preferred over an interpretation which defeats its object---Special forum of the Family Court has been created by the Legislature for expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs, as manifest from Preamble of the Act---Section 12A of the Act, 1964 has specified a period within which such cases have to be disposed of by a Family Court---It is a quasi-judicial forum which can draw and follow its own procedure provided such procedure is not against the principles of fair hearing and trial---In the present case, exercise of discretion on part of both Courts below, declining the petitioner/defendant to produce document at belated stage, was not arbitrary, capricious or whimsical but manifestly based on valid reasons which did not warrant interference by High Court---No illegality or jurisdictional error had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

       Saif Ur Rehman v. Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh 2018 SCMR 1885; Muhammad Tabish Naeem Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others 2014 SCMR 1365; Muhammad Asim and others v. Mst. Samro Begum and others PLD 2018 SC 819 and Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge Alipur, District Muzaffargarh and another 2006 SCMR 100 ref.

(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---

----Preamble & S.9---Failure of the defendant to attach document(s) along with written-statement---Belated filing and production of document---Discretion of the Family Court---Scope---Family Court dismissed an application filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking permission to produce additional evidence (the document/receipt of return of dowry articles), which judgment was maintained by the District Court---Contention of the petitioner was that the document (receipt of return of dowry articles) sought to be produced was relevant/ admissible in evidence, but the same was not available to him at the time of recording of evidence---Validity---Permission for belated filing and production of a document in evidence could not be granted as a matter of routine keeping in view the principle of purposive interpretation as well as the object of the Family Courts Act, 1964 ('Act, 1964')---Discretion should be exercised by the Family Court through a speaking order keeping in view the facts and circumstances in each case---Relevant considerations for the Family Court in this regard included the stage of proceedings at which the permission was sought, reason furnished by a defendant that prevented him from filing and producing the document at the relevant time, nature of the document sought to be filed and produced (such as admissible per se or otherwise required to be proved), delay in conclusion of the proceedings likely to be occasioned by the permission and likelihood of any other prejudice to the plaintiff if the permission sought was granted---In the present case, permission to produce additional evidence had been denied to the petitioner for having been made at the fag end of proceedings in the suit after recording of evidence by the parties and that too to adduce a private document which was not admissible per se---No valid reason preventing the petitioner from filing and producing the document sought to be tendered in evidence at the relevant time had been advanced and it had been rightly found to be an attempt to fill in lacuna after evidence of the parties had been recorded---Permission sought, if granted, would have not only caused serious prejudice to the case of the respondent/plaintiff but would have also defeated the object of the Act 1964 i.e. expeditious disposal of the dispute--- Therefore, the exercise of discretion on part of the Courts below was not arbitrary, capricious or whimsical but manifestly based on valid reasons which did not warrant interference by High Court---No illegality or jurisdictional error had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

 

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.