' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.----The contention of learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, is that FAO No,14 of 2000 before the High Court was not maintainable because of absence of pecuniary jurisdiction; which was amended in 2002, while the FAO was decided on 25-2-2008. The impugned judgment is, thus, coram non judice and suffers from , absence of pecuniary jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Aziz-ur-Rehman v. Ahmed Khan (2004 SCMR 1612).
Leave to appeal is granted to inter alia consider this question or any other question which may arise at the time of hearing the appeal.
2. CMA No,239-L of 2008. The learned Law Officer states that the decretal amount was deposited in the High Court and the same had been placed in a profit bearing security scheme by the Executing Court. Therefore, the operation of the impugned judgment may be suspended.
3. We consider that in the present case, absence of pecuniary jurisdiction appears to be patent and this issue was not taken into consideration by the High Court, wherefor, operation of the impugned judgment is suspended in the meantime.