1968 SCMR 324 (PLP)
Malik KHIZAR HAYAT KHAN TIWANA AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus Mst. ZAINAB TIWANA-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 324 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Malik KHIZAR HAYAT KHAN TIWANA AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus Mst. ZAINAB TIWANA-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 324 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 324 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 324 (PLP) (Malik KHIZAR HAYAT KHAN TIWANA AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus Mst. ZAINAB TIWANA-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. K. Brohi and M. Ismail Bhatti, Senior Advocates Supreme Court (A. H. Najafi, Advocate Supreme Court with them) instructed by Messrs Siddiq and Company, Attorneys for Petitioners.
- Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. Z. Khaleel, Attorney for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th November 1967, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 5558 of 1967). West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 25- Question whether High Court competent to transfer a case pending before Family Court although such Court deemed to be District Court when dealing with guardianship matter-Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The questions raised on this petition for special leave to appeal are: (i) Whether the High Court was competent to transfer a case pending before a Family Court which, it is said, is a Court of exclusive jurisdiction even though it may be deemed to be a District Court when dealing with Guardianship matter and (ii) Whether Rule 6 of the West 'Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965, is at all attracted to the case. The High Court has answered these questions in the affirmative and it is contended by Mr. Brohi, on behalf of the petitioners that the decision on these points is erroneous. It is also repre sented that the learned Chief Justice of the High Court has made certain observations in the course of his order, which might prejudice the right of the petitioners to contest the territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge, Lahore, to deal with the matter. It also appears that the respondent has put in a petition to the High Court praying for the transfer of the case to the High Court itself. The District Judge, to whom the case had been transferred by order of the High Court, has taken the view that the question of jurisdiction is concluded by observations of the High Court. The questions raised are of general importance and merit consideration. We grant leave to appeal as prayed. If the parties wish to put in any concise statements, they may do s within a fortnight, but no other papers would be required for completion of the record. The petitioners will furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1,000, prior to the appeal being set down for hearing. The appeal may, subject to the order of my Lord, the Chief Justice, be heard at Karachi as the nature of the case requires its expeditious disposal. The stay order already granted, will continue, in force, pending disposal of the appeal. Petition accepted.