SAIF-UL-MALOOK vs Malik MEHMOOD KHAN S — 2026 CLC 370 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SAIF-UL-MALOOK VS Malik MEHMOOD KHAN S.6 & O.VII, R.10---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act (XLIX of 2020), S.3---Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, loss of---Amendment in C.P.C. (procedural law) made during pendency of the suit---Effect---Retrospective application of the amendment---Scope---Trial Court held that procedural amendment had no retrospective effect in absence of express provision---Legality---The facts of the present case were that respondent No.1 instituted a suit for the recovery against the petitioners and proforma respondents---The Trial Court proceeded against them ex parte and decreed the suit---Subsequently, the petitioners and proforma respondents appeared, applied for setting aside the ex parte decree, and also sought condonation of delay---Trial Court allowed their applications and set aside the decree, however, on a revision petition, the district court reversed that order and restored the ex parte decree, which constrained the petitioners to file the present Constitutional petitions---The legal question for determination before the High Court was as to "whether the Trial Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to continue entertaining the suit after the enactment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020, and whether the revisional court erred in overlooking the effect of the amendment and the settled principle regarding retrospective application of procedural laws"?---Held: During the pendency of the suit the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020 was enacted amending S.6 of the C.P.C., as a consequence to which, Trial Court lost its pecuniary jurisdiction---Amendment through S.3 of the Act 2020, whereby S.6 of C.P.C. was substituted, and whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil court viz-e-viz the district judge had been determined had a retrospective effect---The revisional court failed to address this crucial issue---Consequently, the ex parte decree passed by the Trial Court was without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity in the eyes of the law---Impugned order was set aside, consequently, the suit filed by respondent No.1 was restored and remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to return the plaint to respondent No.1 for presentation before the appropriate forum---Present Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances. Procedural amendments---Retrospectivity---Principle---Amendments affecting substantive rights do not have retrospective application---However, amendments concerning procedural matters are generally deemed to have retrospective effect as they regulate the manner in which rights are enforced rather than altering the rights themselves.

SAIF-UL-MALOOK vs Malik MEHMOOD KHAN S — 2026 CLC 370 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC