Rai NAEEM SHAHADAT vs Mst. QAMAR MUNIR and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order dismissing a writ petition that challenged a judgment and decree for the return of dower. The core legal question concerns whether a suit instituted in a Civil Court prior to an amendment in the Family Courts Act, 1964, could competently be dealt with and decreed by the Family Court upon the inclusion of dower matters in its schedule. The Supreme Court held that the change of forum is a procedural matter operating retrospectively, as litigants do not possess a vested right to a particular forum. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that procedural amendments altering the forum of a suit apply retrospectively because there is no vested right in any specific forum.
- Does a litigant have a vested right to a particular forum for trying a pending lis?
- Does a change of forum operate retrospectively as a procedural change?
- Can a Family Court competently decree a suit transferred or affected by an amendment including dower in its jurisdiction?
- Family Courts Act, 1964
' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---Leave to appeal is sought againstthe order dated 4-10-2001 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment and decree passed against him for return of dower was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the institution of this petition are that the respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner for return of dowry articles in the Civil Court. During the pendency of the suit, the Family Courts Act, 1964, was amended and the return of dower was also included in the Schedule and thus, the suit was dealt with by the Family Court and the decree was passed for the recovery of dowry articles. An appeal was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, who affirmed the aforesaid decree. Both the aforesaid judgments and decrees were assailed before the High Court in writ petition, which was also dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, a suit filed before the Civil Court prior to the amendment in the Family Courts Act could not be decreed by the Family Court and hence the same was without jurisdiction.
4. We are afraid, the contention has no forte because the forum was changed and nobody has a vested right to a particular forum to try his lis. The change of forum is a procedural change and operates retrospectively. We are fortified in this by Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- INTIKHAB A. SYED and others vs CHAIRMAN, NAB and others 2018 CLD 1505, 2019 MLD 127