1985 PLP 200 (MLD)
ABDUR REHMAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus Kist. AMIR KHATOON and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 200 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza, J |
| Parties | ABDUR REHMAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus Kist. AMIR KHATOON and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 200 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 200 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 200 (MLD) (ABDUR REHMAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus Kist. AMIR KHATOON and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Hamid for Petitioner.
- Wasim Sajjad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), Sched., S.5--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Recovery of dower amount--Decree for--Appeal against--Dismissal of for non-deposit of decretal amount--Held, depositing of decretal amount in Court was not necessary to maintain appeal in lower appellate Court--Case remanded for decision on appeal in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
S. 10--West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), Sched., S.5--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Recovery of dower amount--Decree for--Appeal against--Dismissal of for non-deposit of decretal amount--Held, depositing of decretal amount in Court was not necessary to maintain appeal in lower appellate Court--Case remanded for decision on appeal in accordance with law. Ch. Abdul Hamid for Petitioner. Wasim Sajjad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th June, 1985. In this case, suit for the, recovery of Rs.20,000 as dower filed by respondent No.l was decreed by the learned Family Court by order, dated 3-5-1982. Petitioner filed an- appeal before the learned District Judge which the learned Additional District Judge dismissed by his judgment, dated 8-9-1982 holding that "it was necessary for, Abdur Rehman appellant to deposit the decretal amount in the, Court and in this connection a specific direction was given to him, vide order, dated 14-7-1982 of this Court to deposit the decretal amount in this Court uptill 1-9-1982 but the same has not been deposited." 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. l has quite frankly conceded that it was not necessary for the petitioner to deposit the decretal amount to maintain the appeal before the .learned Additional District Judge. In this view of the matter, appeal was dismissed by A the learned Additional District Judge on incorrect premises. This -writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 8-9-1982 is set aside and the case' is remanded to him for fresh decision of the appeal in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances 6f the case. H.B.T. Writ accepted.