1987 PLP 2563 (MLD)
Mst. LALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAHIM and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2563 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi, J |
| Parties | Mst. LALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAHIM and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2563 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2563 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2563 (MLD) (Mst. LALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAHIM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Hussain Sajan Allana for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.14--Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S.14--Appeal--Word 'decision' appearing in S.14 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 not qualified by word 'final'--Order passed under S.12, Guardians and Wards Act, therefore, would be appealable under S.14 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act.--[Appeal (civil)].
Judgment & Decree
The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition is that the learned District Judge, Karachi West had no jurisdiction to set aside the decision of the Family Court passed under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Reference has been made to section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act which empowers the District Court to hear appeals against decisions or decrees passed by the Family Court not presided over by a District Judge, etc. The contention of the Counsel was that the term "decision" refers only to final orders but the same does not refer to orders of inter locutory nature passed by the Family Court. Reliance was placed on P .L D 1976 Lahore 1015, wherein it was held that the word "decision' used in section 14 should be read as Ejusdem Generis to the wore "decree" and consequently "decision" would mean a final decision and not a decision in the nature of interlocutory order. However, in P L D 1975 Karachi 448 a contrary, view was taken and -e, it was held that since the expression "a decision giv6n" appearing in section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act was not qualified by any such word as "final", order under section 12, Guardians and IA Wards Act would be appealable under section 14 of the said Act, I have no hesitation in respectfully agreeing with the view expressed in the Karachi case. Consequently I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel and this petition is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./L-8/K Petition dismissed