Seen. Perused the materials available on record. Further perused the family execution case No. 05/20 and the original family suit No. 93/2016.
Upon
such perusal, it appears that the instant case is a miscellaneous case is
brought in before the court against the contested judgment and decree passed in
the original family suit No. 93/2016. But, the opposite party today places a
petition mentioning that this miscellaneous case is not maintainable in the eye
of law. Heard both sides, and looked into the relevant fact and laws. Upon
close scrutiny of the matters in question, it occurs to the court that although
the petition for this family miscellaneous case states that an ex parte order and decree was passed in
the original family suit No. 93/2016, the real case is just the opposite. Since
the original suit No. 93/2016 was decreed on contest, it is decisive that the
instant case is not maintainable under section 9(6) of the 1985 Family
court ordinance. With having manifest findings regarding, and the judicial
notice of, the facts in issue and relevant laws, the court feels that the
instant suit requires to be buried at once. Moreover, it also appears that the
instant family miscellaneous case is presumed to be brought in by way of
misrepresentation in the petition; it would be fair to compel the petitioner to
compensate the aggrieved opposite party.
Hence, it is ordered that the petition dated 31.05.22 be allowed; and this miscellaneous case be dismissed with costs.