Section 7: Institution
2013 MLD 16 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
RABIA AKHTER VS MUHAMMAD AYUB
5, Sched. & S. 7—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.14—Suit for jactitation of marriage—Non-signing and verification of plaint—Effect—Non-signing of plaint and verification by the plaintiff himself, would not affect the filing of the suit.
2013 MLD 16 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
RABIA AKHTER VS MUHAMMAD AYUB
5, Sched. & S.7—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Procedure Rules, 1998, Rr.3, 4 & 5—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42—Suit for jactitation of marriage filed by husband—Maintainability—Term “Jactitation of marriage”—Connotation—Both, the Trial Court and Shariat Court, had concurrently decreed suit for jactitation of marriage by the plaintiff husband—Counsel for the defendants had contended that suit for jactitation of marriage could only be filed by a woman and husband could not file such suit—Validity—Family Court under R.5 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Procedure Rules, 1998, had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon the matters enumerated in the Schedule; and jactitation of marriage fell at serial No.7 in the Schedule—Family Court had exclusive jurisdiction for deciding the question of jactitation of marriage—Term “jactitation of marriage” was of wide implication and would seem to cover an assertion by either of the spouses or a third party, denying the marriage between the alleged husband and wife, and would include an action either by one of the spouses against the other, or by the spouses against third party—Suit could be filed by a person other than the spouses involved in the jactitation of marriage—Suit be filed by the spouses against third party with a view to prevent them from denying their marriage—Person could claim that a woman was not his wife or a wife could claim that she was not wife of defendant and he/she would refrain from claiming as such, in a suit by a plaintiff that a woman was his lawfully wedded wife and another person, the plaintiff could request for issuance of a prohibitory decree—Suit for declaration that the defendant was not the husband or wife of plaintiff and the defendant alleged to be wife or husband by the plaintiff was suit for jactitation of marriage—Suit for jactitation was the only case on which matrimonial suit could as of right, be proceeded without prima facie proof of a marriage de facto—Family Court had exclusive jurisdiction to try a suit for jactitation of marriage—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2007 CLC 281 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Mst. KOUSAR BEGUM VS MATLOOB HUSSAIN SHAH
—-R. 3(1)—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993, S.5, Sched, and Ss.7 & 22—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, Rr.14 & 15—Suits for recovery of dower, dowry, maintenance and restitution of conjugal rights—Non-signing and non-verific
2000 YLR 2523 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
RAFHAT RASHID VS GHULAM SARWAR
—-S.5 & Sched. Ss. 7, 8, 9—Suit for jactitation of marriage—Ex parte order, setting aside of—Plaintiff, on direction of Court, sent copy of plaint to defendant alongwith list. of witnesses and other documents through registered post–Defendant hav
2000 YLR 1905 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
YASMIN VS GHULAM HUSSAIN
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act 1993 –S.7(2)– Application for summoning witnesses and production of documentary evidence was dismissed by Family Court with observation that number of witnesses to be produced in support of plaint, their names and addresses and brief summary of facts to which they would depose, was required by law to be submitted alongwith the plaint and that law did not empower Family Court to allow parties to produce any evidence or introduce any other witness at any later stage—Validity—Plaint, no doubt was required to contain brief summary of the facts and names and addresses of the witnesses to be produced in support of plaint, but S.7(2) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 did not place any embargo on the power of Family Court to allow parties to produce any evidence at any later stage—Proviso to S. 7(2), West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had given ample powers to the Court to summon any document or to call any witness at any stage on the application of either party, if in the opinion of the Court same was expedient in the interest of justice–Observation by Family Court while dismissing application for summoning witnesses and production of document was incorrect–Family Court, while deciding the application had not applied its mind to the merits of the application, whereas it was the duty of the Court to decide same on merits—Order of Family Court was set aside.
1998 MLD 2033 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUMTAZ HUSSAIN VS YASMEEN AKHTAR
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act 1993 —-Ss. 7 & 15—Court is competent to summon any person as witness despite the fact that any party failed to file the list of witnesses with the pleadings.–[Witness].
1997 CLC 121 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
A.M. KAMAL VS LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST
- 4—Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11—Acquisition of evacuee property—Validity—Where Competent, Authority had granted approval for acquisition of evacuee property, such property would cease to form part of compensation pool irrespective of fact whether compensation in lieu thereof, had been determined or not—Plaintiffs, thus, would have no cause or grievance to challenge disposal of property by Authority—Acquisition proceeding for public purposes/scheme or disposal of same could not be questioned on plea that acquisition proceeding being of evacuee property, same was illegal.