' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. Leave to appeal was granted in Civil Appeal No,449-L of 2009, vide leave granting order, dated 23-6- 2009. The grant of leave was premised on the case titled State Life Insurance Corporation v. Mst.
Sadaqat Bano (2008 CLD 1069). Learned counsel appearing for State Life Insurance Corporation has, however, referred to a judgment of a full Bench of the High Court wherein it has been held that the aforesaid judgment proceeds on an erroneous premise inasmuch as "the time specific jurisdictional threshold under section 115 of the Ordinance has not been considered by the above cited judgment" [rendering the same] per incuriam. The reasoning, which prevailed with the learned full Bench is proper being consistent with the provisions of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, which provisions were not taken into account in the earlier judgments including the judgment in the case of State Life Insurance Corporation v. Mst. Sadaqat Bano (2008 CLD 1069).
2. Mr. Liaquat Ali Butt, learned Advocate Supreme Court, appearing for Insurance Claimants contended that the full Bench of the High Court could not have declared the earlier nine judgments reported as State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Sadaqat Bano (PLD 2008 Lahore 461); State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Naseem Begum (2009 CLD 1413); Azhar Iqbal v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (2009 CLD 910); Ijaz Begum v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (2009 CLD 1317); Nasreen Begum v. State Life Insurance Corporation (2009 CLD 1480); Rukia Bivi v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (2009 CLD 1213); Ghulam Raza Sajid v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (2010 CLD 792); Riffat Asghar v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (2010 CLD 1123) and Fatima Begum v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (2010 CLD 1171), to be per incuriam. He insisted on placing interpretations of section 115, which are not legally tenable by any stretch of reasoning. Section 115 for ease of reference is reproduced as under:-- "115. Application of Pakistan law to policies issued in Pakistan. ---The holder of a policy of insurance issued by an insurer in respect of insurance business transacted in Pakistan after the commencement of this Ordinance shall have the right, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy or in any agreement relating thereto, to receive payment in Pakistan of any sum secured thereby and to sue for any relief in respect of the policy in any Tribunal; and if the suit is brought in Pakistan any question of law arising in connection with any such policy shall be determined according to the law in force in Pakistan: ' Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a policy of marine insurance."
3. According to the learned counsel, this Section despite its clear wording to the contrary, will also extend to the policies issued before the date of commencement of the Ordinance and consequently the Tribunals set up under the said Ordinance will have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters. This contention is not only misconceived but is also frivolous as it flies in the face of the express wording of the provision reproduced above.
4. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals (Civil Appeals Nos.449-L of 2009; 284 to 286; 283-L; 586-L to 591-L; 609-L to 613-L; 637-L to 640-L; and 767-L of 2013) filed by the Insurance Claimants are dismissed with costs; the appeals (Civil Appeals Nos.817 and 818 of 2010; 56-L, and 63-L of 2011; 623-L to 628-L; 723-L; 726-1 to 731-L of 2013) filed by the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, are allowed with costs; and petitions (Civil Petitions Nos.I253-L of 2011 and 1516-L to 1521-L of 2013), filed by State Life Insurance Corporation are converted into appeals and - allowed with costs.