This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20-11-1973, passed by Additional District Judge, Multan. Whereby he reviewed order dated 11-4-1972 passed by his predecessor on an appeal filed by respondent against the order dated 19-7-1971, passed by Civil Judge, Lodhran.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration in the Civil Court that Mst. Maryam Mai was his legally wedded wife and her Nikah with Faiz Bakhsh on 15-8-1970 was illegal, . Void and further that Faiz Bakhsh be restrained from calling Mst. Maryam Mai as his wife. This suit was held by the learned Civil Judge to be in fact a suit for jactitation of marriage and consequently, returned the plaint for presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction as according to him, it was exclusively triable by Family Court constituted under the 'West .Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.
3. The respondent assailed the aforementioned order in appeal before the District Judge, Multan and the latter confirmed the finding of the learned Civil Judge holding that Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and dismissed the appeal on 11-4-1972.
4. The respondent thereafter moved an application under Order XLVII, C. P. C. Seeking review, of the judgment dated 1,1-4-1972 on the ground that Act I of 1969 (West Pakistan Family Courts Amendment Act 1969) which included, jactitation of marriage in the schedule attached to the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 was repeated by Ordinance XV11I of 1970 and therefore, such a suit was not triable by Family Court constituted under the aforementioned A9t. The Additional District Judge by, the impugned order dated 2,p-11-1973 accepted the application, reviewed the judgment of his predecessor, passed in appeal and remanded the case to the Civil Judge, Lodhran, for trial.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, accepting the review application of the respondent without notice to the petitioners. It was also submitted that the. Provisions of section 3 of West Pakistan Repealing Ordinance XVIII of 1970 were misconstrued. It was stated that jactitation of marriage is still included as part of the Schedule attached to West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and only the Family Court, has exclusive jurisdiction to try suits of jactitation of marriage.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent conceded that the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioners and also that Family Courts had exclusive jurisdiction for the trial of the suits of jactitation of marriages. He, however, submitted that an observation be made to the effect that the suit filed by the respondent be entertained by the Judge Family Court at Lodhran.
7. Order XLVII, rule 4 (2) of C. P. C. Provides :- "Where the Court is of opinion that the application for review should be granted it shall grant the same :- Provided that-
(a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to the opposite-party, to enable him to appear and be heard in support of the decree or order, a review of which is applied for ; and (b)
Admittedly, no notice as contemplated under the aforementioned provision) of law was served upon the petitioners before the impugned order was] passed by the learned Additional District Judge adverse to the interest of the petitioners. The impugned order was contrary to the specific provisions of law, and therefore illegal. West Pakistan Repealing Ordinance, 1970, repealed West Pakistan Family Courts (Amendment) Act 1969, but in section 3 at was' provided :- "The repeal by this Ordinance of any law shall not affect- (a)------------------ (b)------------------.
(c) ------------------.
(d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, title, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punish--ment as aforesaid ; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if this Ordinance had not been promulgated ; nor shall be repeal of any law by which the text of any law so amended by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, affect the continuance of any such amendment. Unless a different intention was expressly stated in the law by which the amendment was made ; nor shall this Ordinance revive or restore anything not in force or existing at the time of its commencement, or affect any law in which any law hereby repealed has been applied, incorporated or referred to, or affect any principle of rule of law, or established jurisdiction, form, or cause of pleading, practice, procedure or existing usage, custom, privilege, restriction, exemption, office or appointment, notwithstanding that they respectively may have been in any manner affirmed, recognised or derived by, in or from any law hereby repealed."
It means that repealing Ordinance saved the continuance of amendment brought by Act I of 1969 to West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. There is hardly any reason to make observation that the Judge Family Court at Lodhran may entertain the suit. The plaint after it is returned to the peti-- tioner, has to be filed by him in a Court of competent jurisdiction and the latter shall try it in accordance with law.
8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 20-11- 1973 passed by the Additional District Judge, Multan is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.