Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.6 & O.VII, R.10---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act (XLIX of 2020), S.3---Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, loss of---Amendment in C.P.C. (procedural law) made during pendency of the suit---Effect---Retrospective application of the amendment---Scope---Trial Court held that procedural amendment had no retrospective effect in absence of express provision---Legality---The facts of the present case were that respondent No.1 instituted a suit for the recovery against the petitioners and proforma respondents---The Trial Court proceeded against them ex parte and decreed the suit---Subsequently, the petitioners and proforma respondents appeared, applied for setting aside the ex parte decree, and also sought condonation of delay---Trial Court allowed their applications and set aside the decree, however, on a revision petition, the district court reversed that order and restored the ex parte decree, which constrained the petitioners to file the present Constitutional petitions---The legal question for determination before the High Court was as to “whether the Trial Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to continue entertaining the suit after the enactment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020, and whether the revisional court erred in overlooking the effect of the amendment and the settled principle regarding retrospective application of procedural laws”?---Held: During the pendency of the suit the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020 was enacted amending S.6 of the C.P.C., as a consequence to which, Trial Court lost its pecuniary jurisdiction---Amendment through S.3 of the Act 2020, whereby S.6 of C.P.C. was substituted, and whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil court viz-e-viz the district judge had been determined had a retrospective effect---The revisional court failed to address this crucial issue---Consequently, the ex parte decree passed by the Trial Court was without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity in the eyes of the law--- Impugned order was set aside, consequently, the suit filed by respondent No.1 was restored and remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to return the plaint to respondent No.1 for presentation before the appropriate forum---Present Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances. Shahzada Colonel Sharifuddin and others v. The Settlement Officer District Upper and Lower Chitral and others 2021 CLC 1668; Amir Zada and others v. Mian Zamin Khan and others 2021 CLC 2042 and Mst. Naseem Ishaq and others v. Khizar Hayat and others PLD 2023 Peshawar 133 ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Procedural amendments---Retrospectivity---Principle---Amendments affecting substantive rights do not have retrospective application---However, amendments concerning procedural matters are generally deemed to have retrospective effect as they regulate the manner in which rights are enforced rather than altering the rights themselves. Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187; Muhammad Abdullah v. Imdad Ali 1972 SCMR 173; Bashir v. Wazir Ali 1987 SCMR 978; Mst. Nighat Yasmin v. N.B. of Pak PLD 1988 SC 391; Yusuf Ali Khan v. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Karachi 1994 SCMR 1007 and Malik Gul Hassan and Co. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 1996 SCMR 237 rel. Muhammad Mohsin Ali for Petitioners. Sohail Baloch, Abdul Majeed Lagari Mehsood and Humayun Khan for Respondent No. 1. Ahmad Abu Hanifa Gandapur, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 6 to 8. Date of hearing: 10th March, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: An application for amendment in PLA under Section 10 of the FIO, 2001 is maintainable and is to be decided before the decision of PLA; Guarantors under Continuing Personal Guarantees remain liable for repayment of debt of principal borrower unless specifically discharged; and Pledge in a financial transaction connotes constructive possession, as such, the pledger remains responsible for actual custody and upkeep of the pledged goods.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: An application for amendment in PLA under Section 10 of the FIO, 2001 is maintainable and is to be decided before the decision of PLA; Guarantors under Continuing Personal Guarantees remain liable for repayment of debt of principal borrower unless specifically discharged; and Pledge in a financial transaction connotes constructive possession, as such, the pledger remains responsible for actual custody and upkeep of the pledged goods. 663Crl. Misc. 7172/25 Phaphi alias Fatima & another Vs The State etc. Mr. Justice Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh 10- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 788 2026 MLD 187 (Lahore)