[Multan Bench]

Present: ABDUL MAJEED TlWANA, J

JALLA and 3 others
Versus
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another

RSA No. 151 of 1967, accepted on 7.10.1989.

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973–
—Art. 203-D~Shariat Appellate Bench-Decision of-Time limit for bringing necessary legislation—Non-Compliance of—Effect of—According to directions contained in judgment of Supreme Court (Shariat Appellate Bench), legislation was to be carried out by 30-6-1983 but Ordinance in this respect was issued on 1.8.1983—Held: Article 203-D of Constitution empowers Federal Shariat Court and Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court to specify time limit for bringing about necessary legislation but no legal consequence is indicated if such directions are not complied with—Held further: Legal objection that impugned judgment and decree of Additional District Judge have abated in view of amendment, is upheld—Appeal accepted.
[Pp. 163&164JA.B&C

PLD 1983 SC (Shariat Appellate Bench) 272 rcf. Mina Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Aziz Akbar Baig, Advocate for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 7-10-1989.

JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 7.11.1966, by which Malik Gulbaz Khan, Additional District Judge, Montgomery, (now Sahiwal) accepting the appeal of Muhammad Shafi, plaintiff-respondent No.l, decreed his suit based on custom, after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1965, whereby Senior Civil Judge, Montgomery, had dismissed his suit.
2. The plaintiff-respondent No.l had challenged the validity of two sale transactions; one embodied in sale mutation No.202 attested on 2.7.1956 in respect of 119 kanals of land situated in the area of village Mulla Hamza, Tehsil Montgomery, and the other incorporated in sale mutation No.107 of the same date in respect of 43 kanals 17 marlas situated in the area of village Killi, Tehsil Montgomery, alleging that his father Shamir was not competent to sell the ancestral land without legal necessity.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant and ultimately it was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 28.10.1965. The plaintiff- respondent preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Montgomery, accepting the same, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by this decision the defendant-appellant filed this appeal.
4. At the out-set the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, with reference to section 2-A of Ordinance No. XIII of 1983, which in turn amended the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1962, which was promulgated pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court reported as PLD 1983 S.C.(Shariat Appellate Bench) 272, submits that the impugned decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Motgomery.jin favour of the plaintiff- respondent stands abated and has become inexecutable.
5. The learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No.l concedes this legal position but he doubts the validity of the amending Ordinance on the ground that according to the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the legislation was to be carried out by 30th of June, 1983 whereas the Ordinance was issued on 1.8.1983 and for that reason it is not enforceable.
6. Article 203-D of 1973 Constitution empowers the Federal Shariat Court and the Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court to specify time limit for bringing about the necessary legislation in order to make the existing law to conform with B the tenets of Islam but no legal consequence is indicated in that provision or any other provision of the Constitution, if such directions are not complied with. In the absence of any specific provision to that effect, any person can, at the most, invoke the provisions of Contempt of Court Act 1974 and do nothing more.
7. In view of the above, the legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is upheld, the appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment and decree dated 7.11.1966 of the learned Additional District Judge, Montgomery, are set aside, having abated, with no order as to costs
(MBC) Appeal accepted.

ajax loader