MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.---The instant petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.04.2016, passed by the Additional District Judge, Chiniot, whereby respondent No,1's appeal, against the dismissal of her suit for declaration, in respect of the property in dispute, by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Bhowana, through the judgment and decree, dated 22.04.2014, has been accepted and respondent No,1 's suit has been decreed, against the petitioner , in the terms that she has been declared to be the owner of 8-Marlas in the property in dispute.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole point, which requires determination, in the instant petition, is to the effect that whether in view of the provisions of section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, read with Entry No,9 in the Schedule to the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was barred in the matter?
3. Submits that respondent No,1 filed a suit, against the petitioner , for declaration and consequential relief, in respect of the property in dispute, which measures 16-Marlas and is situated at Ghagh Chowk, Tehsil Bhowana.
Further submits that respondent No,1 laid her claim in respect of the property in dispute on the basis of the entry in Column No,16 of the parties' Nikahnama, that is to say, she claimed that one half (1/2) of the property in dispute was owned by her as it was given to her by the petitioner through the said entry by way of Atiya' at the time of the parties' marriage, on 23.07.2008, however , respondent No,1 was denying her ownership thereof.
4. Submits that respondent No,1 brought her suit before a Civil Court. However , in view of Entry No,9, ibid., read with Section 5, ibid., the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the matter stood ousted. Submits that at the time of passing of the impugned decree, Entry No,9, read as the "personal property and belongings of a wife". Further submits that by virtue of the said provisions of law, a suit in respect of the personal property and belongings of a wife was to be filed before a Family and not a Civil Court. Contends that in case, respondent No,1 had a claim in respect of the property in dispute, she should have approached the Family Courts and not the Civil Courts. Further submits that Entry No,9, ibid., was inserted in the Schedule, ibid., on 01.10.2002, throug h Family Courts (Amendment)
Ordinance. 2002, whereas respondent No,1 filed her suit on 28.06.201 1, therefore, her suit came under the mischief of Entry No,9. Contends that in view thereof, the impugned judgment and decree has been passed without jurisdiction and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not urged any other ground.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 supports the impugned judgment and decree. Submits that the dispute between the parties was purely of a civil nature, therefore, the Civil Courts had jurisdiction in the matter .
7. Further submits that even otherwise, the question of jurisdiction has been raised by the petitioner for the first time in the present proceedings. Contends that in absence of a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, at the very first instance, this ground cannot be raised at this belated stage.
8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their able assistance.
9. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No,1 that the petitioner has raised the question of jurisdiction for the first time in the instant petition. However , this argument does not come to the aid of respondent No,1, as it is settled law that a challenge to the jurisdiction of a Court over the subject matter of the lis, if based purely upon a point of law , can be raised at any stage, even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. The challenge of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the matter , however , fails for the reason that albeit by virtue of the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, ibid., Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudic ate upon matters specified in Part I of the Schedule to the Act and Entry No,9, as quoted in Para-4 above, is included in Part I of the Schedule, yet the suit filed by respondent No,1 was a suit for declaration in respect of the property in dispute. In view thereof, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba Imtiaz and others (PLD 2011 SC 260), suits for specific performance, declaratory suits of any nature, or any other civil litigation between a wife and a husband, are not amenable to the jurisdiction of Family Courts. In other words, the learned Courts below (the Civil Courts) had jurisdiction in the matter . The impugned judgment and decree, dated 22.04.2014, has, therefore. been passed in accordance with law .
11. Under the circumstances, the petition fails and is accordingly , dismissed. ere is no order as to costs.