“The definition of “actionable claim” in the TPA
is strictly and exclusively relatable to the
operative provisions of Chapter VIII of that Act,
which by virtue of Sections 130 to 137 thereof
inter alia, prescribes the requirements and the
broad mechanism for the transfer and the
assignment of the “actionable claims” so defined
in section 3. It has no application beyond the Act
even if any general concept emerges on account
of the expression, it is restricted to the law it
forms part and cannot be stretched to apply to
any other law of the land, including the Family
Courts Act, 1964, thus the interpretation of entry
No.9 ibid as provided by Muhammad Akram v.
Mst. Hajra Bibi and 2 others (supra) is the
correct explication of law, which is hereby
approved. However, adding thereto, it may be
held that if the ratio of Nasrullah dictum (supra)
which is entirely and solely founded on the noted
concept / definition is taken to be correct, than a
suit for Specific Performance, declaratory suits
of any nature, or any other civil legislation
between a wife and husband shall be amenable to
the special jurisdiction of the family Court, which
is not intent of the law. Because according to the
literal approach of reading a statute, the statue
has to be read literally by giving the words used
therein, ordinary, natural and grammatical
meaning. Besides, the addition and subtraction
of a word in a statute is reading in and reading
down may be pressed into service in certain
cases; thus when in Entry No.9 ‘actionable
claim’ has not been provided by the legislature
intent and the rules of interpretation to add this
express to the clause / entry. ”
PLD 2011 Supreme Court 260
Used in judgment of:
WP- Family Law
3045-14
0 comments:
Post a Comment