MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. --- On 21.4.2008 the -respondent No. 2 filed a suit against the petitioner for dissolution of marriage (Khula) and for recovery of dowry or value thereof. The petitioner filed a written statement. The case was taken up for pre-tril conciliation on 31.7.2008. The suit for dissolution was decreed on the ground of Khula with the observations that the respondent shall not be entitled to claim dower and if the petitioner has a claim, he may file a suit for recovery of dower amount allegedly paid by him. The file was ordered to be consigned to the records: Against this judgment, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1339/08 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 26.9.2008.
2. On 6,10.2008 the respondent filed an application before the learned Judge Family Court explaining that she had also filed a suit for recovery of her dowry articles which was yet to be decided but the file has been ordered to be consigned to the records. She prayed for the .
Restoration of the suit for recovery of dowry. A reply was filed by the petitioner. Vide order dated 15.12.2008 the application was allowed and the suit for recovery of dowry was restored.
3. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order is without lawful authority inasmuch as the learned Judge Family Court had no jurisdiction to review the earlier order. According to him, the application was also barred by time. He relies on the cases of Anwar Masih v. Wailat and 2 others (1983 CLC 2365) and Mst. Zainab Khatoon v. Mian Ghulam Shabbir and another (PLD 1965 SC 55).
4. 1 have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel. As stated above, the suit was filed for the reliefs of dissolution of marriage as also for recovery of dowry articles of their value. Needless to state that under the present dispensation, the respondent was entitled to claim all available reliefs with reference to the Schedule to the Family Courts Act, 1964 in one suit. It is further obvious that the suit for dissolution was decided with reference to Section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 (as amended). The suit for recovery of dowry was not decided rather not touched, at all and the file was ordered to be consigned. To my mind, no element of review is involved as no decision whatsoever was taken in the suit for recovery of dowry.
It was only through sheer inadvertence that the learned Judge Family Court proceeded to consign the file to the records. .
5. Coming to the judgments noted above, 41 the case of Anwar Masih, this Court interfered as the learned District Judge proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the said writ petitioner after hearing the matter and thereafter proceeded to review the said order: It was in the said background that this Court held that the District Judge could not have reviewed the decision already given whereby the appeal was accepted. In the said case of Zainab Khatoon, the exercise of power of review by a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was held to be without lawful authority. In the present case, no decision or order was passed in the suit for recovery of dowry and the impugned order is only tantamount to re-calling the order inadvertently passed for consigning the file to the records after decreeing the suit for dissolution of marriage. No case for exercise of. Constitutional jurisdiction stands made out. The writ petition accordingly is dismissed in limine. .