Pakistan Case Law
1999 PLD Lahore 33

MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Mst. RAHEELA ASLAM and 2 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1999 PLD Lahore 33
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No,19031 of 1998
Date1998-09-17
Judge(s)Malik Muhammad Qayyum
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This constitutional petition arises out of a pending family suit under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, wherein the petitioner's defence was struck off by the Family Court and an appeal against the said interlocutory order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on the ground of non-maintainability. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court amounts to a 'decision' under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and is consequently appealable. The Court held that the word 'decision' in Section 14 must be read ejusdem generis with the word 'decree' and is restricted to final orders, thereby rendering an appeal against an interlocutory order incompetent. The key principle laid down is that interlocutory orders of Family Courts are not independently appealable under Section 14, but any interim order can be challenged in an appeal filed against the final decree.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court is appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the word 'decision' in Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 cover interim orders?
  • Can an interlocutory order of a Family Court be challenged in an appeal filed against the final decree?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 14, West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964
Family Courtinterlocutory orderappealabilitydecisiondecreeejusdem generisdefence struck off

ORDER

' The dispute in this petition arises out of a pending suit under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 filed by respondent No,1 against the petitioner in which his defence was struck off on 30-3- 1998 and the case was adjourned for evidence of respondent No,

1. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 31-7-1998 on the ground that the appeal against the interlocutory order does not lie.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 not only a decree but also any decision of the Family Court is appealable and even if the order is interlocutory in nature, it amounts to decision and could be appealed against. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any force.

3. Although it is true that section 14 mentions the word "decision" but it has been held by various Courts that this has to be read ejusdem generis and must take colour from the use of the word "decree" in the said section and only final orders would be covered by the word "decision". If any authority is needed, reference may be made to S. Azharul Hassan Naqvi v. Mst. Hamida Bibi and 2 others 1979 CLC 754. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional District Judge was correct in holding that the appeal before him was not competent.

4. Be that as it may, the petitioner is not remedyless inasmuch as if a decree is ultimately passed against him by the Family Court, he can file an appeal against the decision or the decree wherein he may challenge interim order, if he so desires.

' Disposed of in the above terms.

Cited by 15 cases

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