AHMED AMIN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK Ss — 2026 PLD 7 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

AHMED AMIN VS DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK Ss. 14, 17 & 26---Family Courts Rules, 1965, Rr. 12 & 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Appeal against judgment of family court dismissed for non-prosecution---Filing of Constitutional petition instead of seeking restoration of appeal---Legality---Exclusion of the provisions of C.P.C. in proceedings before the family court , plea of---Despite the exclusion of provisions of C.P.C. family courts are not precluded to invoke provisions of C.P.C. for securing the ends of justice---Appellate court having the power to restore appeal dismissed for non-prosecution---Fact in brevity were that the petitioner challenged the dismissal of his appeal for non-prosecution through the present Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution---The original suit, filed by respondent No. 3 (his wife), involved claims for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula, recovery of dower, maintenance, dowry articles, and gold ornaments, which the family court decreed in her favor---The petitioner's appeal against family court's decision was dismissed for non-prosecution by the District Judge--- Instead of seeking restoration of appeal before the appellate court, the petitioner filed the instant constitutional petition---Pivotal question for determination by the High Court was as to "Whether a party whose appeal under S. 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 was dismissed in default could invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution against the said order instead of moving an application for re-admission of appeal before the Appellate Court?"---Held: It is clear from perusal of S. 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 (the Act 1964) that no procedure was laid down therein for the appellate court as to how to deal with the appeals preferred thereunder---However, S. 26 of the Act, 1964 empowered the Provincial Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act 1964 and more specifically to provide for the procedure to be followed by the family courts---In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 26 of the Act, 1964, the Family Courts Rules, 1965 were framed---Rule 12 of the Ruled 1965 dealt with the situation relating to dismissal of suit in default and its restoration on showing sufficient cause whereas R. 13 empowered the family court to set-aside the ex-parte proceeding or decree in terms thereof and R. 22 dealt with the appeals and provided amechanism, time for filing and form of the appeals but neither the Act, 1964 nor the Rules, 1965 catered for the situation if the appeal was dismissed on account of default of the appellant---There was even no provision authorizing the appellate court to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution---Despite clog of S. 17 of the Act, 1964, in absence of any specific provision in the Act, 1964 dealing the subject, family courts were not precluded to invoke the provisions of C.P.C. or to draw an analogy therefrom for securing the ends of justice---An appellate court dealing with an appeal under S. 14 of the Act, 1964 not only was vested with the inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution but it could also restore the same on showing sufficient cause by the appellant if his appeal was dismissed on account of default---Constitutional petition was not maintainable since an alternate and efficacious remedy in the form of moving an application for restoration of appeal was available to the petitioner---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

AHMED AMIN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK Ss — 2026 PLD 7 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD