MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.-- The dispute in this petition arises out of a pending suit under the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964 filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner in which his defence was struck off on 30.3.1998 and the case was adjourned for evidence of respondent No. 1. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 31.7.1998 on the ground that the appeal against the interlocutory order does not lie.
2. The leamedleamed counsel for the petitioner has contended that under Section 14 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964 not only a decree but also any decision of the Family Court is appealable and even if the order is interlocutory in nature, it amounts to decision and could be appealed against. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any force..
3. Although it is true that Section 14 mentions the word "decision" but it has been held by various Courts that this has to be read ejusdem generis and must take colour from the use of the word "decree" in the said-section and only final, orders would be covered by the-word "decision". If any authority is needed, reference may be made to S'. Azharul Hassan Naqvi v. Mst. Hamida Bibi and 2 others (PLJ 1979 Lahore 504). In this view of the matter,, the learned Additional District Judge was correct in holding that the appeal before him was not competent.
4. Be that as it may, the petitioner is not remedyless inasmuch as if a decree is ultimately passed against him by the Family Court, he can file an appeal against the decision of the decree wherein he may challenge interim order, if he so desires.
Disposed of in the above term.