MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HAFIZABAD Ss — 2024 CLC 375 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HAFIZABAD 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. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 375 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HAFIZABAD 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.

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HAFIZABAD Ss — 2024 CLC 375 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC