CLC 2011

2011 PLP 1531 (CLC)

Kh. SUHAIL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SHABANA — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2011-March-10
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2011 PLP 1531 (CLC)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties Kh. SUHAIL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SHABANA — Respondent
Primary Law (b) Words and phrases, (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1531 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Words and phrases, (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1531 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1531 (CLC) (Kh. SUHAIL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SHABANA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Words and phrases (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)

Representation

  • Dr. Hameed Ahmed Ayaz for Petitioners.
  • Rana Abdul Waheed Khan for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

S. S & Sched.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54

Suit for declaration with permanent injunction praying that plaintiff be declared owner of the property in question in terms of Iqrar Nama Kabeen (document of settlement of dower)

Defendants moved application under O. VII, R.10, C.P.C., contending that subject matter of the suit being recovery of dower, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court; therefore, civil court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit--Held, under S.5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, Family Court enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction to try matters enumerated in the First Schedule and dower being an item mentioned in the Schedule, the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the suit was with Family Court

Jurisdiction vested in courts under special law i.e. West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 ousted the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts

Said jurisdictional boundaries had to be maintained and any proceedings before a forum lacking jurisdiction could not be permitted to continue, therefore proceedings before the civil court were coram non judice and void ab initio

Application of defendant, under O. VII, R.10, C.P.C. was allowed and plaint was returned to the plaintiff to file the same before Family Court of competent jurisdiction

High Court observed that it was painful to note that the suit of the plaintiff was filed in the year, 2004 and it was now being returned for lack of jurisdiction in the year 2011 after almost seven years; had the civil court examined the plaint judiciously and diligently parties could have been put on proper course seven years ago.

"Iqrar Nama Kabeen "

Meaning.

Judgment & Decree

SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction, praying, inter alia, that the respondent be declared owner of the property in question in terms of Agreement dated 26-4-1992. During the pendency of the suit the petitioners moved an application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. on 6-5-2010 submitting that the subject-matter of the suit being recovery of dower, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts, therefore, the learned civil court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The said application of the petitioners was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20-9-2010. Petitioners have assailed the said order before this court.

2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that under section 5(1) of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964 the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to recovery of dower lie with the Family Court and, therefore, the instant suit cannot proceed before the learned civil court of plenary jurisdiction.

3. Counsel for the respondent highlighting the conduct of the petitioners submits that the suit was filed on 22-9-2004 and the petitioners filed their written statement on 11-1-2005. The evidence of the respondent (plaintiff) in this case was concluded on 30-1-2010 and in spite of several opportunities, the petitioners have failed to lead evidence, as a result their right to lead evidence was closed on 20-2-2011. Review was filed against the said order by the petitioners, which was also dismissed on 24-2-2011. He further contends that the suit filed by the respondent was to seek a declaration that the mother of the petitioners had gifted the property in question in favour of the respondent through Agreement dated 26-4-1992 and is not a matter pertaining to dower.

4. Arguments heard, record perused.

5. The property in question has been gifted to the respondent by the mother of the petitioners in lieu of dower through an Igrar Nama Kabeen dated 26-4-1992. Kabeen Nama according to the Feroze-ul-Lughat1 means "document of dower". The contents of the Kabeen Nama state that id consideration of the marriage (prior to the marriage) between respondent and petitioner No.1, the mother of the petitioners i.e., Fazeelat Bibi, inter alia, gifted the property in question to the respondent in lieu of dower. 1. (New edition) - Ferozesons Ltd.,

6. From the above it is clear that Iqrar Nama Kabeen is a document of settlement of dower, in favour of the respondent. Additionally, respondent (as PW-1) in her cross-examination has admitted that the suit in question is for the recovery of her dower.

7. Under section 5 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964, Family Court enjoys exclusive jurisdiction to try matters enumerated in the First Schedule. "Dower" being an item mentioned in the schedule the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the present suit is with the Family Court. The jurisdiction vested in courts under special law (i.e., Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964) oust the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts. These jurisdictional boundaries have to be maintained and any proceedings before a forum lacking jurisdiction cannot be permitted to continue. Therefore, the proceedings before the learned civil court are coram non judice and void ab initio.

8. For the above reasons, impugned order of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated 20-9-2010 passed on the application of the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. is, therefore, set aside. The application of the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. is allowed and the plaint is returned to the respondent to file the same before the Family Court of competent jurisdiction.

9. Before parting with judgment. It is observed that this court is pained to note that the suit of the respondent was filed in the year 2004 and is now being returned for lack of jurisdiction in the year 2011 after almost seven years. Had the learned civil court examined the plaint judiciously and diligently parties could have been put on proper course c seven years ago.

10. For the reasons given above this petition is allowed. M.A.K./S-109/L Petition allowed.