Pakistan Case Law
1986 CLC 2381

NASIR KHAN vs TAHIRA RASHIDA

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 CLC 2381
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No. 3695 of 1985
Date1986-01-11
Judge(s)Manzoor Hussain Sial
Resultpetition is allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the lower authorities in execution of a family court decree, which included committing him to civil prison. The core legal question was whether a judgment debtor under a money decree passed by a Family Court can be committed to civil prison in the manner of ordinary civil process, disregarding the specific mode of recovery provided under the statute. The Lahore High Court held that the procedure for executing money decrees passed by Family Courts is strictly governed by Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which mandates recovery as arrears of land revenue rather than detention in civil prison. The Court ruled that committing the petitioner to civil prison was illegal and without jurisdiction, setting aside the impugned orders. The key principle laid down is that execution of money decrees passed by Family Courts must strictly follow the statutory mode prescribed in Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • How is a money decree passed by a Family Court required to be executed under the law?
  • Can a judgment debtor in a family court money decree be committed to civil prison?
  • What is the legal consequence of executing a Family Court money decree through the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 13(3), West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964
family court decreeexecution of decreemoney decreearrears of land revenuecivil prisonjurisdiction

Nasir Khan petitioner has challenged the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in execution of the decree passed by the Judge Family Court, Lahore in favour of respondent No.4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Civil Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction by committing the petitioner to civil prison. The procedure provided for execution of money decrees passed by the Family Courts is prescribed under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the petitioner, therefore, could not have been committed to civil prison by respondent No.2. It was also submitted that the order of the learned Additional District Judge in rejecting petitioner's revision petition also suffered for lack of jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 did not join issue with the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point raised by him, and stated that the impugned orders are untenable.

Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 provides:- "(3) Where a decree relates to the payment of money and the decretal amount is not paid within the time specified by the Court, the same shall, if the Court so directs, b ~ recovered as arrears of land revenue, and on recovery shall be paid to the decree-holder."

Undoubtedly, in the instant case, the above-mentioned procedure nrescribed for execution of money decree was not resorted to, and the petitioner was committed to civil prison illegally.

In this view of the matter the impugned orders passed by the respondents Nos. l and 2 are set aside and declared to be of no legal consequence.

3. In the result, this petition is allowed with the observation that the executing Court shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law:

4. There shall be no order as to costs.

Cited by 12 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.