The definition of “actionable claim” in the TPA

14. As far as the claim of petitioner No.1 with regard to recovery of Rs.100,000/- on the basis of condition No.16 in the nikahnama is concerned. Reliance is placed on a celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as “Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba Imtiaz and others.” (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 260), the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

 “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. ”

Part of Judgment : 

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

WP- Family Law
3045-14

2015 LHC 5006