1999 PLP 882 (YLR)
SAGHIR AHMAD — Applicant Versus Mst. RUKHSANA TABASSUM and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 882 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Fakhar-un-Nisa Khokhar, J |
| Parties | SAGHIR AHMAD — Applicant Versus Mst. RUKHSANA TABASSUM and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 882 (YLR)?
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 1999 PLP 882 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mrs. Fakhar-un-Nisa Khokhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 882 (YLR) (SAGHIR AHMAD — Applicant Versus Mst. RUKHSANA TABASSUM and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 14 & 27
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, R.1 & S.114
Order of payment of dower to wife passed by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction-- Review of judgment of High Court-- Maintainability
Applicability of provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Application of provisions of C.P.C. to the proceedings under West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 were barred with the exceptions of Ss. 10 & 11, C.P.C.
Purpose of Legislature was to shorten and delimit the further proceedings as regards second appeal, revision etc., therefore, the provisions of review were not applicable to the proceedings to Appellate Courts and even to Courts having supervisory Constitutional jurisdiction. Anwar Masih v. Wailat and 2 others 1983 CLC 2365 and Mst. Zainab Khatoon v. Mian Ghulam Shabbir and others PLD 1965 SC 55 rel. Ikramud-Din Khan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
A full-fledged judgment was given on 11-1-1999 by this Court in Writ Petition No.2258 of 1998, Writ Petition No.3279 of 1998 and Writ Petition No.691 of 1998. The petitioner instead of challenging the impugned judgment before the competent forum as filed the instant review application on the grounds that the judgment is against the law and facts; has , been based on extraneous considerations and is based on demand of dower by respondent No. l which is neither available in pleadings nor finding of the learned Courts etc.
2. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides an appeal against the decree and also against the decision passed by the Family Court. District Court being final Court of appeal under the Act can dispose of appeal against the decision of Family Court and also a decree passed by the trial Court. High Court has got the Constitutional jurisdiction when it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law. A bare reading of Section 14 discloses the intention of the legislature that it did not bar the substantive right of appeal even by not applying C.P.C. Application of C.P.C. is being barred to the proceedings of the Family Court Act with the exceptions of sections 10 and 11 of C.P.C., clearly shows that the purpose of the legislature is to shorten and delimit the further proceedings as regards second appeal, revision etc., therefore, the provisions of review are not applicable to the proceedings, to the appellate Courts and even to Court having supervisory Constitutional jurisdiction. Anwar Masih v. Wailat and 2 others 1983 CLC 2365 relied on Mst. Zainab Khatoon v. Mian Ghulam Shabbir etc. PLD 1965 SC 55, it was held that the District Judge was not competent to review his own order passed earlier in appeal which attained finality even though defective and illegal, therefore, the instant review application is without substance and is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S-331/L