ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C. P. No. S – 508 of 2018

C. P. No. S – 701 of 2018

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

03.12.2018

Mr. Shewak Ram Valecha, Advocate for the petitioner.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Mr. Sadaruddin Buriro files vakalatnamas of Mr. Muhammad Hamzo Buriro, advocate on behalf of respondent No.2 in both petitions, taken on record.

2. These two petitions arising out of a family dispute decided by the trial Court and the appellate Court. In this petition i.e. C. P. No. D-508 of 2018, the petitioner has impugned an order, whereby Suit was decreed to the extent of dowry articles and dower amount, whereas, in the connected petition i.e. C. P. No. D-701 of 2018, the order, whereby execution application was allowed, was impugned.

3. It is a case of the petitioner that the judgment of the trial Court and that of the appellate Court are not based on evidence, and apparently it is a case of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence.

4. Learned counsel was asked to go through the relevant deposition which could have turned the decision had it been perused, he has relied upon the cross-examination of respondent No.3 / plaintiff. He was reading the irrelevant cross-examination that the petitioner signed Nikahnama without reading it and that it was written in the Nikahnama that she was virgin. There is not an iota of evidence that the dower amount was either paid or not received by plaintiff. Similarly, there is no evidence that dowry articles were taken back by her which she / respondent brought along with her at the time of her marriage. In fact, to the contrary, it was suggested that she took all the dowry articles during litigation, which suggestion was denied. In substance, the dowry articles were not denied. The burden of this assertion was on petitioner / defendant and no substantial evidence was produced by the petitioner.

5. This petition has been filed against the concurrent findings of two Courts below and there is no reason or occasion to upset the findings of two Courts below, neither it is a case of mis-reading or non-reading of evidence.

6. In the connected petition also, the execution was allowed and the only defence given by the counsel was that the petition challenging the main judgment and decree is pending, therefore, the Executing Court should not have allowed the Revision Application. This is only a futile attempt to hamper the proceedings pending before the Executing Court. In the absence of any interim order in this petition, the Executing Court was well within its right to proceed with the matter and the execution was rightly allowed by the Executing Court.

7. These are the reasons for the short order announced in open Court today.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit