IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1530 of 2019 
(Against the order dated 04.03.2019 passed by the Lahore 
High Court Multan Bench Multan in F.A.O. 135 of 2011) 
 
 
 
Muhammad Arshad Anjum 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
Mst. Khurshid Begum & others  
 
     …Respondent(s) 
                
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Ibad ur Rehman Lodhi, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Maulvi Anwar ul Haq, ASC 
 
Barrister Umer Aslam, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
16.04.2021  
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
  
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Center of 
controversy is land measuring 298-Kanals 4-Marlas situating in 
the revenue limits of Mouza Lutafpur District Multan; it originally 
vested with Muhammad Manzoor respondent No.6 who sold it to 
Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Shameer, Muhammad Khalid and 
Muhammad Hamid sons of Wali Muhammad for a consideration of 
Rs.93,18,700/- vide mutation No.1994, attested on 17.8.2005; 
petitioner purchased this land from its previous owners through 
different transactions, mutated on 26.7.2007 and 27.10.2007, 
respectively; it is his claim that on 7.1.2010, his request to obtain 
certified copies of the revenue record relating to the said land was 
declined by the Halqa Patwari on the ground that it was under 
2 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1530 of 2019 
 
attachment; he was astonished by a Family Court decree dated 
30.05.2008 whereby a suit filed by Khurshid Begum against her 
husband, respondent No.6 for the recovery of maintenance, dower 
and dowry was decreed in consequence of latter’s failure to take 
special oath; he also failed in appeal before a learned Additional 
District Judge at Multan on 15.07.2008; a Constitution petition 
before a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court at 
Multan Bench met with no better fate on 5.11.2008. Baffled by the 
events, the petitioner first filed an objection petition on 9.1.2010, 
dismissed on 5.5.2010 due to pendency of an application under 
section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code); it 
was withdrawn in view of pendency of an identical application 
before a learned Additional District Judge, that too was dismissed 
on 9.4.2011, having regard to the failure of supra Constitution 
petition. Undeterred by successive failures, the petitioner once 
again approached the learned Additional District Judge for setting 
aside the decree with results no different than the previous; this 
once again brought him before the High Court with yet another 
setback by judgment dated 4.03.2019 to have his last recourse 
before us. In his arduous journey throughout, it has been his case 
that Family Court decree was procured through a surreptitious 
conspiratorial collusion that manifestly constituted “fraud and 
misrepresentation” within the contemplation of section 12(2) of the 
Code ibid and, thus, was liable to be set aside.  
2. 
 
   Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that suit 
filed by respondent No.1 against her husband was fraudulently 
devised, structured on a marriage certificate with interpolated 
entries, mischievously contrived to defeat petitioner’s legitimate 
rights acquired through valid transactions and as such the 
impugned decree, based upon a dubious conduct as well as 
outcome of fraud cannot sustain. Fraud vitiates the most solemn 
proceedings, added the learned counsel. It is next argued that 
exclusion of provisions of the Code barring sections 10 & 11 does 
not stand in impediment to examination of a plea of fraud by a 
party before a Family Court particularly when it is evident on the 
record. 
The 
spouses 
seemingly 
remained 
in 
the 
wedlock 
throughout despite an ostensible acrimonious contest for a sizable 
3 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1530 of 2019 
 
chunk of land claimed as deferred dower against a petty sum of 
Rs.500/- as prompt are circumstances by itself intriguing, 
clamouring for a thorough probe, concluded the learned counsel. 
Contrarily, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the 
land in question was given by late Muhammad Manzoor to his wife 
as dower and, thus, no subsequent transaction could possibly 
defeat her interest in the said land; according to him, it was 
beyond jurisdictional competence of a Family Court to adjudicate 
upon the issues raised by the petitioner, a business to be best 
attended in a plenary jurisdiction; he has also referred to the 
limited application of the Code in proceedings before a Family 
Judge. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Petitioner’s recourse to defend his title in the disputed 
land, decreed in respondent’s favour as her dower, before the 
Family Court and latter before the Additional District Judge, 
though somewhat haphazard, nonetheless, was the only option 
available to him. The Family Court decreed the suit, without a full-
dress trial merely upon failure of respondent’s husband to take 
special oath, a circumstance that too prevailed with the learned 
Appellate Court. Ostensible contest remained restricted between 
the spouses without slightest breach in the nuptial bond, to the 
exclusion of rest of the world. Failure of petitioner’s Constitution 
petition in the High Court also turned out a far cry. Throughout 
the contest, respondent relied upon technical barricades, thus, the 
questions that call for our consideration are whether exclusion of 
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barring sections 
10 and 11 thereof, stood in impediment to petitioner’s approach to 
the Family Court for reexamination of the judgment within the 
contemplation of section 12 (2) of the Code or that he should have 
asserted 
his 
claim 
of 
being 
a 
bonafide 
purchaser 
with 
consideration through an intervener in civil plenary jurisdiction?  
 
The Family Court Act 1964 (W.P. Act XXXV of 1964) (the Act) 
was enacted for “…… expeditious settlement and disposal of 
disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters 
connected therewith”; provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 
1984 (P.O. No.10 of 1984) and those of the Code except sections 10 
4 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1530 of 2019 
 
and 11 have been excluded to achieve the legislative intent. The 
exclusion of normal rules of procedure and proof, applicable in civil 
plenary jurisdiction for adjudication of disputes in proceedings 
before a Family Court, is essentially designed to circumvent delays 
in disposal of sustenance claims by the vulnerable; this does not 
derogate its status as a Court nor takes away its inherent 
jurisdiction to protect its orders and decrees from the taints of 
fraud and misrepresentation as such powers must vest in every 
tribunal to ensure that stream of justice runs pure and clean; such 
intendment is important yet for another reason, as at times, 
adjudications by a Family Court may involve decisions with far 
reaching implications/consequences for a spouse or a sibling and, 
thus, there must exist a mechanism to recall or rectify outcome of 
any sinister or oblique manipulation, therefore, we find no clog on 
the authority of a Family Court to reexamine its earlier decision 
with a view to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its 
jurisdiction and for the said purpose, in the absence of any express 
prohibition in the Act, it can borrow the procedure from available 
avenues, chartered by law.  
 
Question of non-applicability of the Code barring sections  
10 and 11 thereof came up before the Court in the case of 
Muhammad Tabish Naeem Khan Vs. Additional District Judge 
Lahore and others (2014 SCMR 1365), in the said case, plea of 
ouster of procedure was repelled as under: 
“We are not persuaded to hold, that the ex parte decree 
dated 4.7.2008 was void, for the reason that there is no 
provision in the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 to 
strike off the defence of the petitioner, when he failed to 
file the written statement, thus, it (decree) should be 
ignored; suffice it to say that the Family Court is the quasi 
judicial forum, which can draw and follow its own 
procedure provided such procedure should not be against 
the principles of fair hearing and trial,…….”.  
 
In the case of Haji Muhammad Nawaz Vs. Samina Kanwal and 
others (2017 SCMR 321) it was reiterated that: 
 
“Family Court, whether as a trial court or an executing 
court, are governed by the general principles of equity, 
justice and fair play”.  
5 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1530 of 2019 
 
 
Impact of fraud practiced upon tribunals exercising plenary 
or limited jurisdictions, respectively, cannot be procedurally 
classified as in all jurisdictions it unredeemedly vitiates the very 
solemnity of adjudication, a wrong that cannot be countenanced 
and must be remedied through dynamic application of equitable 
principles of law and such approach has been approved by this 
Court in a good number of cases arising out of erstwhile rent laws 
that too excluded wholesale application of the Code. See PLD 1975 
SC 331 The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Vs. Raja 
Mohammad Fazil Khan and others, 1992 SCMR 917 (Tanveer 
Jamshed and another Vs. Raja Ghulam Haider, 1992 SCMR 1908 
Mst. Fehmida Begum Vs. Muhammad Khalid and another, 1993 
SCMR 226 Fazal Elahi Malis through legal heirs Vs. Miss Abida 
Reasat Rizvi, 1997 SCMR 1986 Haji Khudai Nazar and another Vs. 
Haji Abdul Bari, 2000 SCMR 540 Masjid Intizamia committee and 
others Vs. Anjuman-e-Falah-o-Bahbood and others, 2001 SCMR 577 
Hanif and others Vs. Malik Armed Shah and another, 2005 SCMR 
882 Suhail Printing Press Vs. Syed Aley Eba Zaidi, 2007 SCMR 818 
Muhammad Tariq Khan Vs. Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami 
and others, 2007 SCMR 1434 Ammanullah Khan Leghari Vs. Abid 
Shaikh Ahmed, 2014 SCMR 1694 Sheikh Saleem Vs. Mrs. Shamim 
Attaullah Khan and others and 1984 CLC 2855 Abdul Salam Vs. 
Mrs. Tahira Zaidi. 
5. 
 
Recourse to plenary jurisdiction as suggested by the 
learned counsel for the respondent would be a journey into a blind 
alley as in the face of a final decree by the Family Court, holding 
the field, the proposed course would inevitably lead to a chaotic 
collusion, if at all the petitioner ever succeed. Therefore, in the 
circumstances, reconsideration/reexamination of the impugned 
judgment and decree by the learned Family Court is the only 
expedient option, conducive to the interest of the contestants. The 
petition is converted into appeal and allowed with no order as to 
costs. Impugned judgment dated 04.03.2019 is set aside, as a 
consequence thereof, appellant’s claim in the property as 
mentioned in his application be attended by the learned Additional 
District Judge Multan before whom his application under section 
12 (2) of the Code shall be deemed as pending. Since this matter is 
6 
 
 
Civil Petition No.1530 of 2019 
 
pending for considerable time, the learned Court seized of the 
matter, in the fullness of time, shall decide it with all convenient 
dispatch sooner rather than later.  
 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
16th April, 2021 
Not approved for reporting.  
Azmat/*