Law:

Section:

The petitioner against whom an ex parte decree had been passed or. 1-11-1974, by the Family Court, Jauharabad, for recovery of the dower amount of Rs. 14,000 moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that although he had been served and had also filed a written statement in the suit which was then pending before the Family Court Sargodha, but during the pendency of the suit the District Judge had transferred the same to the Family Court, Jauharabad, of which transfer he had had no notice and that he had come to know of the decree when its execution had been taken up. He also moved an application for stay of the recovery of the decretal amount but the same was refused by the Family Court on 29-11-1978. His appeal against the refusal before the District Judge, Sargodha, also failed on 23-4-1979, on the ground of its non-maintainability. The learned District Judge was of the view that section 14 of the Family Courts Act permitted appeals only from certain decrees or decisions, that the words "decree" and "decision" occurring contiguously in the section, will have the same meaning on the principle of ejusdent generis and that an order refusing to grant an interlocutory relief was no better than an interlocutory order. and was, thus, not covered by the expression "decree" or "decision".                                                                       Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner contended that the word "decision" used in section 14 was meant to cover all orders other than decrees, that the interpretation put by the learned District Judge that it amounted to an order analogous to a decree was not legally sustainable, that the refusal to grant a stay was a "decision" and as such appealable under section 14…