Legal Advice on the Civil Litigation Process in Pakistan and A Comprehensive Q&A Guide by Josh and Mak International

Introduction:

Understanding the legal framework and procedures of civil litigation in Pakistan can be challenging for those unfamiliar with the system. This comprehensive blog aims to demystify the process, offering clear insights into the structure of the civil court system, the role of judges and juries, time limits for civil claims, and pre-action considerations in Pakistan.

The civil litigation process in Pakistan is a multifaceted and intricate system, with its own set of challenges and procedures. From initiating proceedings to the final judgment, each step follows a structured yet flexible timeline, impacted by various factors including court capacity and procedural norms. Understanding these aspects provides a clearer picture of the civil litigation landscape in Pakistan and sets realistic expectations for those involved in or studying the process.

What is the structure of the civil court system in Pakistan?

The civil court system in Pakistan, established under the Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, comprises a hierarchy including the court of the district judge, the court of the additional district judge, and the court of the civil judge. The system is present in all four provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory. Civil judges, categorized into classes based on pecuniary jurisdiction, generally handle first-instance cases, while district judges often exercise appellate jurisdiction. In Karachi, the High Court of Sindh has original jurisdiction over civil claims exceeding 15 million Pakistani rupees. Appeals from civil judges go to the district judge or the High Court, and the Supreme Court handles appeals from the High Court.

What is the role of the judge and the jury in civil proceedings in Pakistan?

In Pakistan, the civil legal system does not involve juries; judges are the sole arbiters of both law and fact. Following the common law tradition, Pakistani judges play a relatively passive role, focusing on procedural adherence, issue framing, evidence supervision, and judgment delivery. Their responsibilities are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

What are the time limits for bringing civil claims in Pakistan?

Civil claims in Pakistan must adhere to time limits set by the Limitation Act 1908, which specifies various periods for different types of claims, most commonly ranging from three to six years. These statutory time limits are mandatory and cannot be altered by mutual consent. Claims filed after the expiration of these periods are typically dismissed.

Are there any pre-action considerations parties should take into account in Pakistan?

While there are no general pre-action requirements in Pakistan, certain statutes necessitate specific actions. For instance, the Defamation Ordinance 2002 requires sending a notice to the defendant before filing a suit. Additionally, suits against government bodies may require notices to be sent to relevant authorities prior to litigation.

How are civil proceedings commenced in Pakistan?

Civil proceedings in Pakistan begin with the filing of a claim, or plaint, in the relevant court of first instance. This process follows the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, including the payment of the necessary court fees. The commencement of proceedings is thus a structured process requiring adherence to established legal norms.

How and when are the parties to the proceedings notified of their commencement?

Once the claim is filed and reviewed by the judge or a judicial officer, summons along with the claim documents are issued to the defendants or respondents. These are typically served through registered post and personal service. If initial attempts at service fail, the court may order alternate means, such as publication in a newspaper. This ensures that all parties are adequately informed about the proceedings and have the opportunity to respond.

Do the courts in Pakistan have the capacity to handle their caseload?

Currently, many courts in Pakistan struggle with capacity issues, largely due to an overwhelming number of pending cases, a shortage of judges, and frequent adjournments. The reliance on manual methods for record-keeping and a lack of digital technology exacerbate these challenges. There is significant room for improvement to enhance the efficiency of civil courts in handling caseloads.

What is the typical procedure and timetable for a civil claim in Pakistan?

The procedure for a civil claim typically involves several stages:

• Filing of the claim and issuance of summons to the counterparty.
• Respondent filing a reply within a set period, usually not exceeding 30 days.
• Court hearing for any interlocutory applications, followed by the settlement of issues based on the parties’ pleadings.
• Recording of evidence.
• Final arguments and judgment.

While there are procedural timelines, strict adherence is rare. Adjournments are common, often prolonging cases for years.

Can the parties control the procedure and the timetable in a civil case?

In Pakistan’s civil litigation system, the judge primarily controls the case timetable and enforces legal timelines. However, parties have some degree of influence—they can request the judge to adjust these timelines, either to expedite or extend them. Judges generally show leniency towards requests for adjournments, allowing parties some flexibility in managing the procedural timeline.

Is there a duty to preserve documents and other evidence pending trial?

In the Pakistani legal framework, there isn’t a generalized obligation for parties to preserve documents or other evidence while awaiting trial. The responsibility for evidence preservation doesn’t automatically apply as it might in some other legal systems.

Must parties share relevant documents, including those unhelpful to their case?

The discovery and inspection of documents are guided by Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. According to rule 14, a court can order any party to produce documents in their possession or control that are relevant to the matters in question in the proceedings. Additionally, any party involved in the litigation has the right to request the inspection of documents mentioned in another party’s pleadings or affidavits. However, for documents not specifically referred to in pleadings or affidavits, or those not in the possession of a party, the court may only grant inspection if it deems the document necessary for a fair disposal of the case or for saving costs. Unlike the broad discovery process seen in jurisdictions like the United States, the Pakistani system focuses on more targeted document production.

Are any documents privileged in Pakistan’s legal system?

Yes, certain documents are considered privileged under Pakistani law. As per articles 9 and 12 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, communications between an advocate and a client, including an advocate’s advice, are privileged. This means they cannot be compelled into evidence by a court. However, this privilege does not extend to communications with in-house lawyers, as a full-time salaried employee is not allowed to practice as an advocate.

 Would advice from an in-house lawyer, whether local or foreign, be considered privileged?

No, advice from an in-house lawyer, regardless of whether they are local or foreign, is not privileged under Pakistani law. This is due to the restriction on full-time salaried employees from practicing as advocates, which means communications with in-house lawyers are not covered by privilege.

Do parties exchange written evidence from witnesses and experts prior to trial?

In Pakistani civil litigation, while parties must submit any documentary evidence they intend to rely on before the trial, they are not required to exchange affidavits of witnesses and experts in advance of the trial. This approach differs from certain other legal systems where pre-trial exchange of witness statements and expert reports is common.

How is evidence presented at trial in Pakistan?

Evidence at trial is primarily presented orally. Each party is required to file a list of witnesses and documents they intend to present. The claimant usually begins, followed by the defendant. Witnesses, including experts, provide their testimony orally in front of the judge or a commission appointed by the court. This testimony includes examination-in-chief, cross-examination by the opposing counsel, and possible re-examination by the witness’s own counsel. Documents supporting the affidavits are presented during the examination-in-chief.

Do witnesses and experts give oral evidence at trial?

Yes, in Pakistan, witnesses and experts give oral evidence during the trial. Their evidence is recorded in narrative form by the judge or commission. In some cases, evidence-in-chief may involve witnesses reaffirming their affidavit contents in court. Cross-examination and re-examination are integral parts of this process, allowing for thorough scrutiny of the evidence presented.

What interim remedies are available in Pakistani civil courts?

Pakistani civil courts offer several interim remedies to address immediate concerns before the final resolution of a case. These include:

• Arrest of a party
• Attachment of property before judgment
• Injunctions to restrain certain actions
• Appointment of a receiver to manage property or assets
• Inspections by a court officer
• In specific situations, courts may also grant Mareva injunctions (freezing orders) and Anton Piller orders (permitting search and seizure), although these are less commonly sought.

Are these interim remedies applicable in suits seeking to enforce foreign judgments?

Yes, interim remedies can also be granted in suits filed to enforce foreign judgments in Pakistan.

What substantive remedies can civil courts in Pakistan grant?

Pakistani civil courts are empowered to grant a wide range of substantive remedies, largely outlined in the Specific Relief Act 1877. These remedies include:

• Damages, including interest (but excluding punitive damages)
• Possession of movable or immovable property
• Specific performance of a contract
• Rectification, rescission, or cancellation of a contract or instrument
• Declaratory decrees
• Perpetual or mandatory injunctions
• Recovery of money, including interest

What means of enforcement are available if a judgment debtor fails to comply with a decree?

If a party fails to satisfy a decree, the decree holder can initiate execution proceedings. The court may then order:

• Delivery of property specifically decreed
• Attachment and sale, or sale without attachment, of property
• Arrest and detention in prison
• Appointment of a receiver
• Other necessary directions based on the nature of the relief granted

What actions can a court take if a litigant disobeys an interim order?

If a party disobeys an interim order, the court can issue further orders to enforce compliance. In cases of continued disobedience, contempt proceedings may be initiated before the relevant High Court. A finding of contempt can result in imprisonment (up to six months), a fine (up to 100,000 Pakistani rupees), or both.

Are court hearings in Pakistan held in public? Can the public access court documents?

Yes, court hearings in Pakistan are typically held in public. This means that members of the public can attend these hearings. Furthermore, court documents are accessible to the public. Individuals can inspect these documents and obtain copies, usually for a nominal fee. This approach underscores the legal system’s commitment to transparency.

Does the court have the power to order costs?

Pakistani courts have the authority to award costs, which are calculated based on the actual expenses incurred. However, these costs are subject to limits, typically ranging from 25,000 to 100,000 Pakistani rupees. Notably, claimants in Pakistan are not required to provide security for the opposing party’s costs. In certain limited circumstances, such as when a plaintiff resides outside Pakistan and lacks sufficient immovable property within the country, the court might require the claimant to provide security for the defendant’s costs. Generally, awarded costs are confined to amounts expended on court fees.

Are contingency or conditional fee arrangements allowed in Pakistan? What about third-party funding?

Contingency or conditional fee arrangements, often known as ‘no win, no fee’ agreements, are not permissible in Pakistan. Third-party funding is not a common practice and there are no explicit rules governing it. However, in the absence of specific regulations, parties are free to enter into contractual agreements regarding litigation funding and the distribution of any proceeds.

Can a party to litigation share its risk with a third party?

While the practice is not common and there are no explicit rules, parties in Pakistan are theoretically free to make contractual commitments to share litigation risks with third parties.

Is insurance available to cover legal costs in Pakistan?

Insurance policies specifically designed to cover legal costs are not available in Pakistan. However, legal costs may sometimes be covered under other types of insurance policies, such as third-party liability insurance.

Can litigants with similar claims bring a form of collective redress in Pakistan?

Yes, in Pakistan, litigants can bring a joint suit if their right to sue originates from the same transaction or series of acts or transactions. This is permissible whether their claims are joint, several, or in the alternative. A collective lawsuit is viable especially when, if filed separately, the cases would involve common questions of law or fact. Furthermore, with court permission, parties can sue on behalf of or for the benefit of all interested persons, requiring notice to be given to all impacted parties. While representative actions are legally permitted, they are less common in practice. Public interest litigation, often involving the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court or Supreme Court, is a more frequent avenue for addressing collective concerns, particularly against the state or its instrumentalities.

What circumstances permit the bringing of a representative action?

A representative action is allowed when multiple individuals have claims arising from similar transactions or events, and where common legal or factual questions would emerge if they filed separately. This mechanism also applies when parties seek to represent a larger group of interested individuals, subject to court approval and adequate notice to all affected parties.

On what grounds and in what circumstances can parties appeal in Pakistan?

Parties can appeal a court decision in Pakistan if they are dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of a court of first instance. The grounds for appeal are not restricted and can encompass various aspects of the judgment. The procedural laws provide for multiple appellate remedies, including appeal, reference, review, and revisions.

Is there a right of further appeal in Pakistan?

Generally, parties have the right to a further appeal after the first appellate decision. If a further right of appeal is not available, parties can still challenge appellate decisions on limited grounds by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts.

What are the procedures for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Pakistan?

Foreign judgments from certain reciprocating territories can be executed in Pakistan as if they were decrees passed by a district court. These reciprocating territories include the United Kingdom, Fiji, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Kuwait, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. To enforce such a decree, a certified copy must be filed alongside an execution application in the district court where enforcement is sought. If a foreign decree is not from a superior court in these specified jurisdictions, the decree holder must initiate a new lawsuit in Pakistan based on the foreign decree.

Can foreign judgments from non-reciprocating territories be enforced in Pakistan?

For foreign judgments from non-reciprocating territories, the decree holder cannot directly enforce the judgment. Instead, they must file a new suit in Pakistan, treating the foreign decree as a cause of action.

Are there procedures for obtaining oral or documentary evidence in Pakistan for use in civil proceedings in other jurisdictions?

Yes, to obtain evidence in Pakistan for foreign civil proceedings, specific procedures must be followed. This involves either:

• A certificate signed by the highest-ranking consular officer of the concerned foreign country in Pakistan,
• A letter of request from the foreign court transmitted through the federal government, or
• Direct production of a letter of request by a party to the proceedings in the relevant High Court.

The High Court, upon satisfaction that the evidence is needed for civil proceedings in a foreign court and that the witness resides within its appellate jurisdiction, will issue a commission to examine the witness. The commission’s report and the evidence collected are then returned to the High Court, which forwards them to the federal government for transmission to the requesting foreign court.

What are the criteria for the High Court to issue a commission for witness examination in these cases?

The High Court issues a commission if it is satisfied that:

• The foreign court aims to obtain the evidence of a witness residing within the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction,
• The proceedings in the foreign court are of a civil nature,
• The request is properly documented through a consular certificate or a letter of request.

What is the structure of the civil court system in Pakistan?

The civil court system in Pakistan, as established under the Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, consists of a hierarchical structure of courts, which includes:

• The Court of the District Judge,
• The Court of the Additional District Judge, and
• The Court of the Civil Judge.

This structure has been adopted, with certain modifications, in all four provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory.

What are the roles of different courts in the civil court system?

Each civil court is led by a single judge who hears and decides all cases. The courts of the civil judges typically act as the courts of first instance. These judges are categorized into different classes based on their pecuniary jurisdiction. The district judges’ courts primarily exercise appellate jurisdiction but also hear some first-instance cases like defamation. The additional district judges perform functions assigned by the district judge and have equivalent powers.

 Is there an exception in the jurisdiction of these courts in any region?

Yes, in the district of Karachi, the High Court of Sindh has the original jurisdiction for hearing civil claims valued over 15 million Pakistani Rupees.

 How does the appellate process work in the civil court system?

Appeals against judgments of civil judges go to either the district judge or the High Court, depending on the suit’s value. Decisions by district judges can be appealed before the High Court. If no direct appeal is available, orders or decrees by district judges can be challenged through revision petitions in the High Court. Typically, appeals from the High Court are taken to the Supreme Court.

 Are there specialized courts within the civil court system?

Yes, Pakistan has established various specialized courts and tribunals for specific types of civil disputes, including banking courts, rent courts, consumer courts, and intellectual property tribunals.

What is the role of the High Courts in Pakistan’s civil court system?

The five High Courts in Pakistan have supervisory jurisdiction over all ordinary and specialized courts. While they generally exercise appellate jurisdiction, they also have original jurisdiction in certain cases, such as company and banking matters, as specified by statute.

What is the role of the judge in civil proceedings in Pakistan?

In Pakistan, judges play a pivotal role in civil proceedings as they are the sole arbiters of both law and fact. Unlike some other legal systems, there is no jury system in Pakistan. Judges in civil cases adhere to an adversarial system and typically adopt a passive role during hearings. Their responsibilities include:

• Determining preliminary issues like jurisdiction and limitation,
• Ensuring compliance with procedural formalities (such as payment of court fees),
• Disposing of applications,
• Framing of issues for trial,
• Appointing commissions for evidence recording,
• Supervising the recording and deposition of evidence and cross-examination,
• Passing orders, judgments, or decrees.

Are there juries in civil proceedings in Pakistan?

No, Pakistan does not have a jury system in civil proceedings. Judges are the exclusive decision-makers in these cases.

 What are the time limits for bringing civil claims in Pakistan?

Civil claims in Pakistan are subject to time limits as governed by the Limitation Act 1908. These time limits vary for different types of claims, ranging up to 12 years, with most civil claims having a limitation period of three to six years. These time limits are mandatory and cannot be waived by mutual consent. If a suit is filed after the prescribed limitation period, it is typically required to be dismissed by the court. Some specific statutes may also set special limitation periods for certain cases.

Are there any pre-action considerations that parties should be aware of in Pakistan?

Generally, no specific actions are required before filing a civil suit in Pakistani courts. However, some statutes impose particular pre-action requirements. For instance, the Defamation Ordinance 2002 mandates sending a notice to the defendant before initiating a suit. Similarly, certain government bodies may require advance notices before a suit is filed against them.

How are civil proceedings commenced in Pakistan?

Civil proceedings in Pakistan begin with the filing of a claim, known as a plaint, in the relevant court of first instance. This process must adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, including the payment of necessary court fees. The plaint sets forth the details of the claim, the parties involved, and the relief sought.

How and when are parties notified of the commencement of proceedings?

Once the plaint is filed and reviewed, the court issues summons to the defendants or respondents. These summons, along with the claim documents, are served through prescribed methods, typically by registered post and personal service. If this initial service is unsuccessful, alternative means like publication in a newspaper may be used. Recent amendments in regions like Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Islamabad Capital Territory mandate simultaneous service via registered post, courier, and other methods to expedite the process.

Do the courts in Pakistan have the capacity to handle their caseload effectively?

Many courts in Pakistan currently struggle with capacity issues due to a large number of pending cases, a shortage of judges, and a tendency to grant adjournments. The reliance on manual record-keeping methods and a lack of digital technology further compound these challenges. However, recent legislative amendments aim to reduce delays by imposing stricter timelines and introducing electronic record-keeping in court proceedings.

What is the initial step in filing a civil claim in Pakistan?

The process of a civil claim in Pakistan begins with the filing of the claim in the relevant court. This initial filing sets the litigation process in motion.

What happens after a claim is filed?

Once a claim is filed, the court issues summons to the counterparty, mandating them to file a reply or written statement within a specified timeframe, usually not exceeding 30 days.

 How are interlocutory applications handled?

If the claim includes an interlocutory application (such as a request for an interim injunction), this application is separately addressed by the court. The court may issue a preliminary order on the application and set it for a hearing. The opposing party is given the opportunity to reply to the application, and the court invites arguments from both sides before making an order on the interlocutory applications.

What occurs after the reply to the claim is filed?

Following the filing of a reply (or if the opposing party is barred from replying), the court moves to the settlement of issues stage. Here, the court identifies and frames the key legal and factual questions that need resolution in the case. The process then progresses to the recording of evidence.

 How does the court conclude a civil case?

After evidence is recorded, the case is set for final arguments. Both parties are invited to make oral submissions in court. Following this, the court delivers its judgment and issues a decree on the matter.

Have there been any recent procedural amendments to address delays in civil cases?

Yes, recent amendments in Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Islamabad Capital Territory to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 aim to address delays in cases involving interlocutory applications. Now, such cases can proceed simultaneously in two different courts—one handling the interlocutory applications and the other focusing on the main suit, including evidence and final arguments.

Are procedural timelines strictly enforced in Pakistan’s civil courts?

Despite courts providing specific time periods for different phases of a civil case and fixed dates for filing documents, it is more common for these timelines to be extended. Parties often seek and are granted adjournments, leading to prolonged litigation times, often extending to five years or more.

Can parties control the procedure and timetable in a civil case in Pakistan?

While the judge primarily controls the case’s timetable and enforces legal timelines, parties have some influence. They can request the judge to modify these timelines, often seeking adjournments. Judges in Pakistan are generally lenient with adjournment requests. Furthermore, recent amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Islamabad Capital Territory empower the respective High Courts to make rules related to case management and scheduling conferences for subordinate civil courts.

Have there been any changes in case management due to recent amendments?

Yes, the recent amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 have introduced provisions for improved case management. These changes allow High Courts to establish rules that can streamline case management and scheduling in civil courts, potentially enhancing the efficiency of civil litigation.

Is there a duty to preserve documents and other evidence pending trial in Pakistan?

In Pakistani civil litigation, there is no general obligation to preserve documents or other evidence while awaiting trial. However, the preservation of evidence can be crucial for a party’s case, and negligence in this aspect might affect the case’s outcomes.

Are parties required to share relevant documents, even if they are unfavorable to their case?

The discovery and inspection of documents in Pakistan are governed by Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. According to Rule 14, a court may compel any party to produce documents in their possession or control that are relevant to the case. Parties are entitled to request the inspection of documents mentioned in another party’s pleadings or affidavits. However, the court will only allow inspection of documents not referred to in pleadings or affidavits if they are deemed necessary for a fair resolution of the case or for cost-saving purposes. This approach focuses on targeted document production rather than broad discovery as practiced in jurisdictions like the United States.

 Are any documents considered privileged in Pakistan? Is advice from an in-house lawyer also privileged?

Under articles 9 and 12 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, communications between an advocate and a client, including legal advice, are considered privileged. This means they cannot be compelled into evidence in court. However, this privilege does not extend to communications with in-house lawyers, as individuals employed full-time are not permitted to practice as advocates in Pakistan.

Do parties exchange written evidence from witnesses and experts prior to trial?

In Pakistani civil litigation, parties must submit any documentary evidence they wish to rely on before the trial along with their pleadings. However, there is no requirement for the exchange of affidavits from witnesses and experts before the trial.

How is evidence presented at trial in Pakistan? Do witnesses and experts provide oral evidence?

Evidence in Pakistani trials is primarily presented orally. Each party must file a list of witnesses and documents they intend to present during the trial. The claimant usually begins presenting evidence, followed by the defendant. Witnesses, including experts, give their testimony orally in the presence of the judge or a commission appointed by the court. Their evidence is recorded in narrative form. Recent amendments in Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Islamabad Capital Territory have introduced provisions for audio and video recording of evidence and proceedings.

What is the process for examining witnesses in a trial?

During a trial, a witness is first examined-in-chief by the counsel of the party calling the witness. This often involves reaffirming the contents of their affidavit in evidence. The recent amendments also allow for the affidavit in evidence to be considered as the examination-in-chief. After this, the opposing counsel cross-examines the witness, followed by a possible re-examination by the original party’s counsel. Documents relied upon are presented during the examination-in-chief, and documents presumed to be true can be submitted as evidence under a statement from the counsel.

What interim remedies are available in Pakistani civil courts?

Pakistani civil courts can grant several types of interim remedies to address immediate concerns before the final resolution of a case. These include:

• Arrest of a party,
• Attachment of property before judgment,
• Injunctions to prevent certain actions,
• Appointment of a receiver to manage property or assets,
• Inspections by a court officer.
• Additionally, Mareva injunctions (freezing orders) and Anton Piller orders (search and seizure orders) are less commonly sought but may be granted in appropriate circumstances. These interim remedies can also be applied in suits seeking to enforce foreign judgments.

Are Mareva injunctions and Anton Piller orders common in Pakistani litigation?

While available, Mareva injunctions and Anton Piller orders are relatively rare in Pakistani litigation. They are, however, granted in suitable situations where urgent protective measures are necessary.

What substantive remedies can be granted by civil courts in Pakistan?

Pakistani civil courts have the authority to grant a wide range of substantive remedies, primarily outlined in the Specific Relief Act 1877. These include:

• Damages (including interest, but excluding punitive damages),
• Possession of movable or immovable property,
• Specific performance of a contract,
• Rectification of an instrument,
• Rescission of a contract,
• Cancellation of an instrument,
• Declaratory judgments,
• Prohibitory injunctions (preventing certain actions),
• Mandatory injunctions (compelling certain actions),
• Recovery of money, including interest.

 What means of enforcement are available in Pakistani courts?

In Pakistan, enforcement of court orders can be divided into two categories: formal execution of orders and punishment for violation of orders. Execution proceedings involve seeking court orders to enforce compliance. This may include:

• Delivery of property,
• Attachment and sale of property,
• Arrest and detention in prison,
• Appointment of a receiver,
• Other necessary directions as per the relief granted.

How are violations of court orders addressed?

If a person violates a court order, such as an interim injunction, the court may attach their property or detain them in prison for up to 6 months. Additionally, contempt proceedings can be initiated in the relevant High Court, where contempt can lead to imprisonment (up to six months), a fine (up to 100,000 Pakistani rupees), or both.

Are there recent changes in the execution process of court decrees?

Yes, recent amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in Punjab have streamlined the execution process. Now, after an executable decree is passed, the proceedings are automatically converted to execution proceedings, eliminating the need for the winning party to file separate proceedings for enforcement.

Are court hearings in Pakistan open to the public? Can the public access court documents?

Generally, court hearings in Pakistan are conducted in public. Court documents are also accessible to the public for inspection, and copies can be obtained for a nominal fee, ensuring transparency in the legal process.

Does the court have the power to order costs in Pakistan?

Pakistani courts have the authority to award costs based on the actual costs incurred, subject to limits typically ranging from 25,000 to 100,000 Pakistani rupees. Claimants are not usually required to provide security for the opposing party’s costs. However, in certain cases, such as when the plaintiff resides outside Pakistan and lacks sufficient immovable property within the country, the court might require the claimant to provide security for the defendant’s costs. Typically, awarded costs are limited to amounts paid for court fees.

 Are ‘no win, no fee’ agreements or other contingency fee arrangements available in Pakistan?

In Pakistan, contingency or conditional fee arrangements, commonly known as ‘no win, no fee’ agreements, are not permissible. The legal framework does not support these types of payment arrangements between lawyers and their clients.

Can parties use third-party funding for litigation in Pakistan?

There are no explicit rules regarding third-party funding in Pakistan, and the practice is not common. However, in the absence of specific regulations, parties are technically free to make contractual commitments regarding litigation funding and the distribution of any proceeds from the litigation.

 Is insurance available to cover legal costs in Pakistan?

In Pakistan, specific insurance policies designed to cover legal costs do not exist. However, legal expenses might be covered under other types of insurance policies, such as third-party liability insurance.

Can litigants with similar claims bring collective redress in the form of class action lawsuits in Pakistan?

Litigants can bring a joint suit if their claims arise from the same transaction or series of transactions and if common questions of law or fact would emerge in individual suits. Additionally, with court permission, parties can sue on behalf of all interested individuals, provided that notice is given to all affected parties. While representative actions or class actions are legally possible, they are less common in practice. Instead, litigants often opt for public interest litigation, particularly for enforcement of fundamental rights against the state or its instrumentalities, through the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court or Supreme Court.

On what grounds can parties appeal in Pakistani courts? Is there a right to further appeal?

In Pakistan, the grounds for appealing a court decision are not restricted to specific criteria. Aggrieved litigants have the right to appeal against the judgment and decree of a court of first instance before the relevant appellate forum. This right is granted under the procedural laws of Pakistan, which include remedies like appeal, reference, review, and revision.

Further appeals are generally available, and parties may seek remedies against orders of the appellate court. In cases where no further appeal is directly available, parties can challenge appellate decisions on limited grounds by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts.

 What procedures exist for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Pakistan?

Foreign judgments from superior courts in certain reciprocating territories can be executed in Pakistan as if they were decrees of a district court. These reciprocating territories include the United Kingdom, Fiji, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Kuwait, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. To enforce such a decree, a certified copy of the decree must be filed with an execution application in the district court where enforcement is sought.

What if a foreign decree is not from a reciprocating territory?

If a foreign decree is not from a superior court in a reciprocating territory, the decree holder must file a new suit in Pakistan, treating the foreign decree as the basis of the claim. This process essentially involves initiating fresh litigation in Pakistan based on the foreign judgment.

What are the procedures for obtaining evidence in Pakistan for use in foreign civil proceedings?

To obtain evidence in Pakistan for use in civil proceedings abroad, specific procedures must be followed:

• A certificate signed by the consular officer of the highest rank of the requesting country in Pakistan should be sent to the High Court within whose appellate territorial jurisdiction the witness resides. This must be done through the federal government.
• Alternatively, a letter of request issued by the foreign court should be sent to the High Court through the federal government.
• As another option, a party to the proceedings may directly produce a letter of request from the foreign court before the High Court.

 What conditions must be met for the High Court in Pakistan to issue a commission for witness examination?

The High Court in Pakistan will issue a commission for the examination of a witness if it is satisfied that:

• The request comes from a foreign court situated in a foreign country,
• The proceedings in question are of a civil nature,
• The witness resides within the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

What happens after the commission executes its duty?

Once the commission has executed its duty and gathered the required evidence, its report, along with the evidence collected, is returned to the High Court. The High Court then forwards these documents to the federal government, which in turn transmits them to the requesting foreign court.

Are there any interesting features of the dispute resolution system in Pakistan not covered in previous questions?

One notable aspect of the Pakistani judicial system is the multifaceted role of judges. In many instances, the same judge may preside over different categories of proceedings. A common example is that ordinary civil courts also exercise criminal jurisdiction. In this arrangement, civil judges also act as magistrates, while district judges and additional district judges hold the charge of sessions judges and additional sessions judges, respectively.

What recent developments have been made in dispute resolution reform in Pakistan?

Several reforms have been implemented to address delays in civil proceedings:

• Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were made in 2020 in Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Islamabad Capital Territory, aiming to reduce delays.
• The establishment of model courts in every district for expeditious case disposal, using technology and limiting adjournments.
• The Lahore High Court established commercial courts in five districts of Punjab to expedite commercial disputes, aiming for resolution within a year.
• The Supreme Court introduced video link facilities to connect branch registries with the principal seat in Islamabad and conducted remote hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Plans are in place to implement e-court systems across the Supreme Court, allowing counsel to attend hearings remotely.

How have the courts in Pakistan adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic?

During the pandemic, most courts in Pakistan suspended regular work and only heard urgent cases. The Islamabad High Court introduced an e-court procedure for remote hearings via Skype. Some benches of the Lahore High Court allowed counsel to attend hearings remotely, with plans to expand this facility. However, other High Courts are yet to establish similar facilities.

 How can I file a case in the Supreme Court through an Advocate?

To file a case in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, you must engage an Advocate-on-Record who is duly enrolled in the Supreme Court as per Rule 14 & 15 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. An Advocate-on-Record may instruct an Advocate of the Supreme Court to plead the case before the court (Rule 6 of Order IV).

Can I file my case in the Supreme Court without engaging a counsel?

Yes, you can file petitions and appeals in person without engaging a counsel, as allowed by the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

How do I seek remedy from the Supreme Court in civil cases?

In civil matters, you can approach the Supreme Court by filing:

• A Civil Petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution within 60 days from the date of the High Court’s order/judgment.
• A Civil Petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution within 60 days from the date of the Service Tribunal’s order/judgment.
• A Civil Appeal under Article 185(2)(d) & (e) of the Constitution within 30 days from the date of the High Court’s order/judgment.
• A Civil Appeal as provided under any other law/statute within the time frame specified in that law.

How do I seek remedy from the Supreme Court in criminal cases?

In criminal matters, you can file:

• A Criminal Petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution within 30 days from the date of the High Court’s order/judgment.
• A Criminal Appeal under Article 185(2)(a)(b) & (c) within 30 days from the date of the High Court’s order/judgment.
• A Criminal Appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 within 30 days from the date of the High Court’s order/judgment.
• A Jail Petition for leave to appeal under Rule 3, Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 within 30 days from the date of the High Court’s order/judgment.

 How can I seek remedy from the Supreme Court in cases of Public Importance regarding enforcement of Fundamental Rights?

To address issues of public importance related to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, you can file a Constitution Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. There is no time limit specified for filing this petition.

How can I seek remedy before the Supreme Court in Shariat Cases?

For cases related to the Federal Shariat Court, you can file:

• A Civil Shariat Appeal under Article 203-F(1) of the Constitution against the final decision of the Federal Shariat Court within 60 days (6 months for the Federation or a Province).
• A Civil Shariat Petition under Article 203-F(2B) against an interim order within 60 days.
• A Criminal Shariat Appeal under Article 203-F(2A) within 30 days from the date of the order/judgment.
• A Criminal Shariat Petition under Article 203-F(2B) within 30 days from the date of the order/judgment.

How can one seek remedy from the Supreme Court in cases of public importance related to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights?

To address issues of public importance concerning the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, anyone can file a Constitution Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Notably, there is no time limit for filing this type of petition.

 What is the procedure for seeking remedy in the Supreme Court in Shariat cases?

In matters concerning the Federal Shariat Court, the following options are available:

• Filing a Civil Shariat Appeal under Article 203-F(1) of the Constitution against the final decision of the Federal Shariat Court within 60 days (or 6 months for the Federation or a Province) if the decision pertains to whether a law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.
• Filing a Civil Shariat Petition under Article 203-F(2B) against an interim order within 60 days.
• Filing a Criminal Shariat Appeal under Article 203-F(2A) in criminal cases within 30 days.
• Filing a Criminal Shariat Petition under Article 203-F(2B) in criminal cases within 30 days.

Can a judgment or order of the Supreme Court be reviewed?

Yes, a party aggrieved by a judgment or order of the Supreme Court can file a Review Petition under Article 188 of the Constitution, along with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. A cash security of Rs. 10,000 is required to be deposited in the Federal Treasury, with the receipt attached to the Review Petition.

What is the procedure for the refund of the security amount of Rs. 10,000 deposited with a review petition?

The security amount will be refunded to the petitioner if the Review Petition is allowed. If the Review Petition is contested by the respondent and dismissed, the security will be refunded to the respondent. An application for the refund needs to be filed to initiate this process.

Is there any remedy available after the decision of a Review Petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan?

No, once a Review Petition has been decided by the Supreme Court, there are no further remedies available within this court.

Can a case pending in a Family Court in one province be transferred to a Family Court in another province?

Yes, such a transfer is possible by filing a Civil Miscellaneous Application before the Supreme Court under Section 25-A(2b) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. This can be done either in person or through an Advocate-on-Record.

 What remedy is available if there is non-compliance with an order of the Supreme Court?

In cases of non-compliance with a Supreme Court order, the aggrieved party can file a Criminal Original Petition (also known as a contempt petition) under Article 204 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. There is no time limit for filing this petition.

Can the Registrar of the Supreme Court refuse to receive a petition or document?

Yes, the Registrar can refuse to receive a petition or document if it has not been filed in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules or if it is deemed frivolous or contains scandalous matter.

What can be done if the Registrar returns or refuses to receive a petition or document?

If a petition or document is returned or refused by the Registrar, the aggrieved party can file a Miscellaneous Appeal against the refusal within 14 days. This appeal is heard and decided by a Judge in Chambers.

What remedy is available to an accused in jail after being convicted by the High Court?

A convicted person in jail can invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by sending a Jail Petition for leave to appeal through the concerned jail authorities. Alternatively, a Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal can be filed through a lawyer or Advocate-on-Record within 30 days from the date of the order or judgment of the High Court.

 How can an accused in criminal cases obtain counsel at state expense in the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court Rules provide for legal counsel at state expense under specific circumstances:

• Convicts sentenced to death by the High Court can obtain counsel under Rule 6 of Order XXIII.
• In other appropriate cases, the Court may direct the provision of counsel at state expense under Rule 7 of Order XXII.

What are the court fees for filing cases and documents in the Supreme Court, and how are they paid?

The court fees for various filings in the Supreme Court, as per Parts I & II of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, are as follows:

• Filing petition for leave to appeal: Rs. 250/-
• Filing an appeal (where the dispute amount is Rs. 15,000 or below): Rs. 250/-, plus Rs. 5/- for every Rs. 1,000 in excess. In cases where the dispute value can’t be estimated in monetary terms, or the maximum fee doesn’t exceed Rs. 2000/-. If an appeal is brought by leave granted by the Court, credit is given for the fee paid on the petition for leave to appeal.
• Filing a concise statement or caveat: Rs. 10/-
• Application for Review of Judgment or Order: Half of the fee paid on the original proceedings.
• Entering Appearance: Rs. 2/-
• Power of Attorney: Rs. 4/-
• For every document without a specific fee: Rs. 2/-
• Every Application: Rs. 5/-
• Certified copy of Decree/Judgment: Rs. 5/-
• Affidavit in Criminal cases, Service Tribunal & Shariat cases: Rs. 10/-
• Affidavit in other cases: Rs. 12/-

How can a person apply for a certified copy of an order or judgment of the Supreme Court?

To obtain a certified copy, one must fill out a prescribed form available at the Information Desk of the Supreme Court. After affixing the requisite court fee (note that court fees are not charged for service matters arising out of judgments of Tribunals), the applicant can obtain a certified copy.

 Can anyone get certified copies of all documents from a case?

Certified copies are issued in accordance with Order IX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. A party to the case who has appeared can obtain copies of documents upon payment of the prescribed fee. Non-parties can also obtain copies but must show good cause for their request and pay the prescribed fee.

How can a person residing outside Islamabad/Rawalpindi obtain certified copies of orders or judgments?

Those residing outside Islamabad/Rawalpindi can approach any of the Branch Registries of the Supreme Court located in Karachi, Lahore, Quetta, and Peshawar to apply for and receive certified copies.

What are the costs involved in obtaining certified copies of orders, judgments, or documents?

According to Part-II of the Third Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, a court fee stamp of Rs. 5/- is required for every certified copy of an order, judgment, or document. Additionally, folio charges of Rs. 1.86 per page are also applicable.

What is the Human Rights Cell of the Supreme Court?

The Human Rights Cell of the Supreme Court processes applications and complaints about violations of fundamental rights, particularly for the poor, downtrodden, and deprived segments of society.

 How can a person approach the Human Rights Cell of the Supreme Court?

Individuals can approach the Human Rights Cell by sending an application via post.

Older version of this article continues below:

If you are planning to file or already in the process of filing a civil suit in Pakistan, understanding the basic legal points is crucial. In this blog, we have compiled essential legal principles from notable court cases to help you navigate the civil litigation process effectively.

1. Adjournments in Civil Cases

In civil suits, evidence is to be recorded day to day, and adjournments should only be granted in exceptional cases with reasons properly recorded (P L J 1981 Supreme Court 484).

2. Amendment of Plaint

Under Muhammadan Law, amendments to a plaint can be allowed if it is necessary to determine the plaintiff’s share in the suit land. However, hyper-technical objections of procedure may be disregarded if the parties are aware of the substance of the controversy (PLJ 1980 Lahore 250).

3. Awarding or Refusing Costs

The Court has discretion in awarding or refusing costs, provided there is material for exercising such discretion. Appeals can be made against orders regarding costs, and the appellate court can entertain cross-objections from the opposite party (P L J 1980 Supreme Court 2).

4. Dismissal for Default

A suit cannot be dismissed for default after the stage of a preliminary decree (P L J 1981 Supreme Court 477).

5. Consolidation of Suits

Consolidating suits aims to avoid multiple litigations, conflicting judgments, and abuse of powers (P L J 1981 Lahore 141).

6. Decree and Possession

Symbolic possession is considered as good as actual possession against the judgment debtor (P L J 1981 Supreme Court 662).

7. Dismissal for Default after Remand

If a suit is dismissed for default during retrial, it may not be a valid objection if the trial date was set properly (P L J 1980 Supreme Court 189).

8. Dismissal of Suit on Merits

Summary dismissal of a suit with genuine allegations may not be appropriate (P L J 1981 Lahore 59).

9. Delay in Evidence

Delays in completing evidence are frowned upon, and the Court may issue directions for day-to-day hearings for a speedy decision (P L J 1980 Supreme Court 226).

10. Execution of Decree

Multiple execution applications can be filed for enforcing a decree, and the Court has the discretion to refuse simultaneous execution (P L J 1981 Karachi 284).

11. Stay of Proceedings

Orders to stay proceedings become effective immediately upon being passed, and any actions taken after such orders may be deemed null and void (P L J 1981 Lahore 296).

Filing a civil suit in Pakistan requires a thorough understanding of the legal principles that govern the process. We hope this blog has provided you with valuable insights into key legal points to consider when initiating or involved in civil litigation. For personalized legal advice and expert representation, feel free to reach out to Josh and Mak International.

Streamlining the Civil Suit Process in Pakistan: A Step-by-Step Guide

In Pakistan, a civil suit involves multiple stages, ranging from the institution of the suit to the final judgment. To ensure a fair and efficient resolution, it is crucial to adhere to the prescribed time limits and follow the provisions laid out in the amended code. In this blog, we will outline the various stages of a civil suit and the corresponding time frames to be observed for each step.

• Institution of Suit (Order 4, 6, and 7)

The plaintiff must file the plaint in accordance with the provisions under Order 4 r/w Order 6 and 7 of the code.

• Issue of Summons (Order 5)

Within 30 days from the institution of the suit, the plaintiff must issue summons to the defendant.

• Filing of Written Statement (Order 8)

Upon receiving the summons, the defendant has 30 days to file his written statement, as per Order 8 R 1 of the code.

• Examination of Parties (Order 10)

Within 10 days from the filing of the written statement, the court must examine the parties to explore possibilities of compromise under Section 89 of the code.

• Settlement of Disputes (Section 89 & 89 AA)

If the parties fail to reach a compromise, the court has to keep the matter for discovery and inspection within 7-10-10-3 days, as per Order 11 of the code.

• Discovery & Inspection (Order 11)

The court will then adjourn the matter for admission within 15 days, as per Order 12 of the code.

• Admission (Order 12)

Parties are required to file the original documents before the framing of issues within 7 days, as per Order 13 of the code.

• Production of Documents (Order 13)

Within 15 days, the court must frame the issues, as per Order 14 of the code.

• Framing of Issues (Order 14)

The parties need to file the list of witnesses within 15 days from the date of framing of issues, as per Order 16 of the code.

• List of Witnesses (Order 16)

The plaintiff has to issue summons to the witnesses for evidence or document production within 5 days of filing the list, as per Order 16 R 1 (4) of the code.

• Summons to Witnesses (Order 16 Rule 1 (4))

Parties must settle the date of evidence as per Order 16 of the code.

• Settling Date of Hearing (Order 16)

The plaintiff must file the affidavits of all witnesses within 3 adjournments as per Order 18 R 4 r/w Order 17 of the code.

• Evidence of Parties (Order 18 Rule 4) r/w Order 17

The court must exhibit the documents, considering their proof and admissibility, with a reasoned order as per the proviso to Order 18 R 4 (1) of the code.

• Exhibition of Documents (Order 18 Rule 4 (1) Proviso)

Cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses must be conducted on a day-to-day basis until all witnesses have been examined, as per Order 18 R 4 (2) r/w Order 17 R 2 (a) of the code.

• Cross-examination by Parties (Order 18 Rule 4 (2))

The defendant has to issue summons to witnesses for evidence or document production as per Order 16 R 1 (4) of the code.

• Summons to Witnesses (Order 16 Rule 1 (4))

The defendant must file the affidavits of all witnesses within 3 adjournments as per Order 18 R 4 r/w Order 17 of the code.

• Evidence of Parties (Order 18 Rule 4) r/w Order 17

The court must exhibit the documents, considering their proof and admissibility, with a reasoned order as per the proviso to Order 18 R 4 (1) of the code.

• Exhibition of Documents (Order 18 Rule 4 (1) Proviso)

Cross-examination of the defendant and his witnesses must be conducted on a day-to-day basis until all witnesses have been examined, as per Order 18 R 4 (2) r/w Order 17 R 2 (a) of the code.

• Cross-examination by Parties (Order 18 Rule 4 (2))

Parties must conclude their arguments within 15 days from the completion of their respective evidence, as per Order 18 R 2 (3A) of the code.

• Arguments (Order 18 Rule 2 (3A))

The court has to deliver the judgment forthwith or on or before 30 days and not exceeding 60 days from the date of conclusion of arguments, as per Order 20 R 1 of the code.

By strictly adhering to the prescribed time frames and following the provisions of the amended code, parties can expect a fair and timely resolution of their civil suits. It is imperative for all stakeholders to respect the intentions of the legislature and strive to expedite the litigation process within the framework of the law. Let us prioritize the implementation of the prescribed stages and ensure a smooth and efficient civil suit process in Pakistan.

Civil Proceedings in Pakistan: A Comprehensive Overview

Introduction:

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the civil proceedings in Pakistan, focusing primarily on the Court of first instance. It explores the process of filing a civil plaint, the necessary formalities for case progression, the representation of corporations in court, the conduct of civil cases, available interim and permanent remedies, and the execution of decrees.

Civil Cases and Their Diverse Nature:

Civil cases encompass a wide range of matters, making it challenging to provide a concise definition that covers all scenarios. These cases arise when individuals or businesses believe their rights have been violated in various ways. Some significant areas of civil law include contract law, family law, employment law, service law, company law, and property law. These claims may involve disputes over contracts, compensation for damages, personal injuries, or injunctions to prevent certain actions. Additionally, family-related matters such as khul‘ or maintenance are also handled in civil courts.

Out of Court Settlements:

The majority of civil cases are resolved outside of court through negotiation and settlement between the parties involved. Many disputes regarding money, compensation, or damages are informally settled between individuals every day, eliminating the need to involve the civil court.

Going to Court:

While court proceedings offer a legal recourse for resolving disputes, going to court can be a time-consuming and costly process for both parties. The claimant must engage a lawyer and pay court fees based on the nature and size of the claim. Additionally, even if the claimant wins the case, there is no guarantee of receiving the full amount ordered by the court, depending on the respondent’s financial situation. Due to these complexities, some people with legitimate claims may choose not to pursue court action. Moreover, many cases are resolved through out-of-court settlements at various stages of the proceedings.

Starting a Court Case:

When parties decide to go to court, the first step is to determine the appropriate court for their specific case. The main courts that handle civil cases include:

• Civil Court presided by a Civil Judge
• Court of District Judge
• High Court
• Supreme Court

The proper forum for a typical civil case is usually the Civil Court presided over by a single civil judge, serving as the court of first instance. Civil judges are categorized based on their pecuniary jurisdiction. District judges, on the other hand, hear appeals against decisions made by civil judges and serve as courts of first instance for defamation cases. If there is no appeal available against the district judge’s decision, it can be challenged in the High Court under writ jurisdiction.

Initiating a Civil Case:

To start a civil case, it is advisable to consult with a lawyer who will prepare a clear, comprehensive, and precise claim or plaint following the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.). Once the plaint is prepared and the requisite fee is paid, it is filed in the civil court, along with all the necessary documents and evidence to support the claim. The judge will review the plaint and documents, and if found in order, will issue a summons to the respondents/defendants, directing them to file their reply or written statement within a specified time frame, usually not exceeding a month. The summons can be served by registered post or other means as directed by the court, including publication in a newspaper.

Service of Summons and Dealing with Non-Responsive Defendants in Civil Cases

The Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) outlines provisions for the service of summons on defendants in civil suits. If the defendant does not reside within the local limits of the court’s jurisdiction, the summons can be served on any manager or agent personally carrying on the defendant’s business or work within those limits. Additionally, if the defendant resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the summons can be served through the court possessing jurisdiction over the defendant’s territory, regardless of whether the defendant is a natural person.

However, in some cases, despite efforts to serve the summons, it may not be successful, and the respondents may refuse to acknowledge the court’s proceedings. This can pose challenges to the progress of the case.

In suits involving corporations, any pleading can be signed and verified on the corporation’s behalf by the secretary, a director, or another principal officer authorized through the articles of association and accompanied by a resolution of the board of directors.

If the claimant has applied for an ad interim injunction, the court has the discretion to either issue or refuse it based on the circumstances of the case. An injunction may be issued for a specific time period and can be vacated if necessary.

Once the written statement of the respondents is received, and the court decides to proceed with the case, it must frame the actual issues in the case based on the pleadings submitted by the parties.

Dealing with Non-Responsive Defendants:

When the summons cannot be served or the respondents refuse to acknowledge it, the court may take necessary measures to ensure proper service. This may include alternative methods of service, such as publication in a newspaper or through electronic means.

If the respondents persistently ignore the court’s proceedings, the court may proceed with an ex parte hearing, wherein the case is heard in the absence of the respondents. However, this is done only after ensuring that all attempts at proper service have been exhausted.

Injunctions:

In cases where the claimant seeks an injunction, the court carefully considers the circumstances and merits of the case before granting or refusing the ad interim injunction. The injunction is generally issued for a specified time, and the court may later modify or vacate it depending on the development of the case.

Framing of Issues:

Once the court receives the written statements from both parties, it frames the actual issues to be determined in the case. These issues are based on the contentions raised by the parties in their pleadings, and they form the foundation for the trial and evidence proceedings.

Deciding Issues and Presenting Evidence in Civil Cases

In every civil case, the main issues or questions to be determined by the court involve both matters of law and matters of fact. Once the issues are framed, the court allocates the burden of proof for each question to be decided in the case. The next steps involve recording evidence and conducting oral arguments by both litigants.

Recording of Evidence:

After the framing of issues and allocation of the burden of proof, the case is fixed for recording of evidence. During this stage, parties may present witnesses, documents, and any other evidence relevant to the issues in question. The court may also order the production of specific documents by any party pertaining to the matters at hand.

Challenges in Adhering to Procedural Timelines:

In civil courts, granting adjournments is relatively common, and various factors such as the absence of parties, their counsels, or witnesses, or other court-related engagements of the counsel may contribute to delays. As a result, strict adherence to procedural timelines may be challenging. These delays are one of the reasons why a routine civil case can take five years or more to conclude at the court of first instance.

Submission of Documentary Evidence:

Any documentary evidence that a party intends to rely on in court must be submitted along with the pleadings. This ensures that all relevant evidence is presented and considered during the trial.

Similarities to Criminal Proceedings:

The way evidence is presented in a civil case bears similarities to the presentation of evidence in a criminal case, as discussed in the chapter on criminal proceedings.

Examination of Witnesses and Granting of Remedies in Civil Cases

Examination of Witnesses:

In a civil case, witnesses play a crucial role in presenting evidence before the court. The examination of a witness typically follows a specific procedure. The witness is first examined-in-chief by their own counsel, during which they present their testimony and any relevant documents filed in support of their affidavit as evidence. The opposing counsel then conducts cross-examination, where they have the opportunity to question the witness to test the credibility of their testimony. After cross-examination, the witness’s own counsel may re-examine the witness to clarify any points raised during cross-examination.

Presentation of Documents:

During the examination-in-chief, witnesses may present written documents to support their testimony. Similarly, counsel for the relevant party can produce documents as part of their evidence if they are deemed helpful in proving the truth of their case.

Interim and Permanent Remedies:

The trial court has the authority to grant interim remedies to parties while the case is pending. These interim remedies include:

(a) Arrest of a party involved in the case if necessary to ensure compliance with court orders.

(b) Issuance of an injunction to prevent a party from taking certain actions or to enforce specific actions.

(c) Attachment of property before judgment to secure the claim or prevent the disposal of assets pending the final judgment.

(d) Appointment of a receiver to manage or preserve property in dispute during the proceedings.

(e) Inspection by a court officer to examine relevant documents or evidence.

Enforcement of Interim Orders:

If a party fails to comply with an interim order of the court, the court can issue another interim order to compel compliance. Additionally, if a party deliberately ignores or disobeys a court order, they may be subjected to contempt proceedings before the relevant High Court.

The examination of witnesses and granting of remedies are pivotal stages in civil cases. Witnesses’ testimonies and the presentation of relevant documents provide the foundation for establishing facts and resolving disputes. Interim remedies granted by the court help ensure fair and just proceedings while permanent remedies are determined in the final judgment. Non-compliance with court orders may lead to further legal consequences for the erring party. Overall, a fair and efficient civil litigation process is essential to uphold the principles of justice and protect the rights of all parties involved.

Substantive Remedies and Execution of Decree in Civil Cases

In civil cases, courts can provide substantive remedies as outlined in the Specific Relief Act, 1877, to address the issues and disputes presented before them. These remedies include:

(a) Damages, which compensate the aggrieved party for the loss or harm suffered.

(b) Possession of property, wherein the court may grant possession to the rightful owner or dispossess an unlawful occupant.

(c) Specific performance, which compels a party to fulfill the terms of a contract or agreement as per the court’s order.

(d) Rectification of an instrument, to correct any errors or mistakes in legal documents.

(e) Rescission of a contract and cancellation of an instrument, which annuls a contract or legal document.

(f) Perpetual or mandatory injunction, where the court may order the party to either refrain from certain actions (perpetual injunction) or perform specific actions (mandatory injunction).

(g) Declaratory decrees, wherein the court declares the legal rights or status of the parties involved.

(h) Recovery of an amount, to enforce the payment of a specific sum of money.

Execution of Decree:

Execution of a civil court’s decree is a crucial stage in the enforcement of a judgment. When the judgment debtor fails to comply with the court’s decision made against them, the decree holder may initiate execution proceedings to enforce the decree. A civil court possesses the authority to issue various orders during the execution process, including:

(a) Delivery of a relevant property specifically decreed, wherein the court ensures the transfer of ownership or possession as per the decree.

(b) Sale without attachment or attachment and sale of any property, if necessary to satisfy the decree amount.

(c) Arrest and detention in prison, in cases where the judgment debtor does not comply with the decree and is liable for arrest.

(d) Appointment of a receiver, who manages the property or assets involved in the case during the execution process.

(e) Any other direction that the nature of the relief granted and the circumstances of the decree may require, providing flexibility to the court in enforcing the decree effectively.

Substantive remedies available in civil cases offer legal solutions to the various disputes and issues presented before the court. The execution of a civil court’s decree is a crucial step to ensure that the judgment is enforced and the rights of the decree holder are protected. The court’s power to issue various orders during the execution process allows for the effective implementation of the judgment and upholding the principles of justice in civil litigation.

Costs and Appeals in Civil Cases

Costs in Civil Cases:

The court has the authority to order costs to be calculated based on actual costs incurred during the litigation process. However, it is rare for the court to award costs, and when it does, it is often limited to amounts paid by way of court fees.

Appeals in Civil Cases:

In civil cases, if the decree holder is dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, they may appeal to the first appellate court. If still unsatisfied, they might further appeal to the High Court, provided an appeal is allowed in the specific case. In family cases, where appeals are not allowed, the party may file a writ petition before the High Court. In certain instances, the litigant may even take the matter to the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the High Court.

Public Nature of Court Proceedings:

All court proceedings in civil cases are conducted in public, and any member of the public can obtain information about ongoing or completed proceedings by paying a nominal fee.

A civil case commences when the plaintiff files a plaint in a civil court and pays the requisite fee. The respondent then sends their written reply, and both parties can submit supporting documents. Typically, each party is represented by their counsel during the trial. Witnesses for the plaintiff testify and undergo cross-examination by the opposing counsel. Relevant documents may be produced in court to support the case of either party. The court has the power to issue both interim and permanent remedies, such as injunctions, property attachment or sale, and arrest and detention. Execution of the judgment is a critical stage in concluding a civil case. Parties have the option to appeal the decision of the court of first instance to higher courts if they are dissatisfied with the judgment. Overall, the civil litigation process aims to ensure fair resolution of disputes and uphold the principles of justice.

Questions? Get in Touch at aemen@joshandmak.com 

Blogs on various aspects of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Note on the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 

Introduction:

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908) is a comprehensive statute aimed at consolidating and amending the laws relating to the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature in Pakistan. Enacted on 21st March 1908, this code serves as the fundamental framework for civil litigation in Pakistan. It is important to understand that while the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is primarily a procedural law, it also contains substantive elements.

Purpose and Object of the CPC:

The CPC is designed to regulate the process of litigation in civil courts. Its primary aim is not to define the rights and liabilities of parties (which is the role of substantive law) but to provide the mechanism for enforcing and protecting those rights. The objective of the CPC is to ensure that justice is administered efficiently and effectively while maintaining procedural integrity.

Key Provisions and Citations:

• Court Decisions and Litigation Process (PLJ 1999 Lah. 977): The CPC is a procedural law that governs the process of litigation. It is distinct from substantive law, which relates to the purpose of litigation. For instance, the right of appeal or to lead evidence are substantive rights. The procedural aspects facilitate the administration and delivery of justice.
• Procedure and Forms (PLJ 1997 Kar. 908 = 1997 CLC 997): The CPC prescribes specific procedures and forms which do not limit the court’s powers but regulate the exercise of those powers. The duty of the court is to determine and protect the civil rights of the parties involved. The CPC ensures that technicalities do not obstruct the course of justice.
• Opportunity of Being Heard (PLJ 1998 SC 615): The CPC embodies the principle of fairness, including providing opportunities for parties to be heard. It stipulates that appellate courts must ordinarily hear both parties. However, if a party is absent without sufficient cause, the court is not obligated to adjourn proceedings indefinitely.

Preliminary Sections:

• Short Title, Commencement, and Extent (Section 1): The Act is titled as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and it came into force on the first day of January 1909. It extends to the whole of Pakistan.
• Definitions (Section 2): The Act defines crucial terms for legal interpretation. For instance, ‘Code’ includes rules, and ‘decree’ is defined as the formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties.
  (a) A decree may be preliminary or final and includes certain specific judicial orders but excludes adjudications from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order or any order of dismissal for default.

In conclusion, the CPC of 1908 stands as a cornerstone of civil jurisprudence in Pakistan, ensuring procedural efficiency and fairness while upholding the principles of justice and equity.

Legal Note on the Definition and Scope of ‘Decree’ under The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

The term ‘decree’ as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is pivotal in understanding the judicial process in civil litigation. This legal note explores the definition, nature, and implications of a decree as per various judicial interpretations and the provisions of the CPC.

Definition and Scope of ‘Decree’:

• General Definition (Section 2(2) of CPC):
  • A decree is the formal expression of an adjudication that conclusively determines the rights of the parties concerning matters in controversy in a suit (PLJ 2001 Lahore 72).
  • It can be either preliminary or final and may include the rejection of a plaint or certain orders under Order XXI of the CPC (1988 CLC 1462).
• Inclusion of Decision on Costs (P L J 1980 Supreme Court 2):
  • A decision regarding costs claimed in a suit is included in the definition of a decree.
• Collusive Decree and Subsequent Suits (PLD 2003 Lah. 255):
  • A collusive decree, even if unchallenged by a plaintiff, is liable to be ignored in subsequent suits involving the same property.
• Preliminary and Final Decree (PLJ 1989 SC 146):
  • A decree is preliminary when further proceedings are necessary for the complete disposal of the suit.
  • It is final when it completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.
  • The nature of the decree (preliminary or final) affects its executability and the subsequent legal process.
• Review of Decree (PLJ 1999 Kar. 714 (DB)):
  • A preliminary decree, even if not incorporated in the final decree, is legally merged into the final decree, and the executing court is bound to implement it together.
• Foreign Decrees and Execution (PLJ 1976 AJ & K 1):
  • Decrees from foreign courts are typically not executable but can influence subsequent judgments.
• Court Fees and Decrees (1988 CLC 1462):
  • An order rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, is a decree for filing an appeal, implicating that ad valorem court fees are applicable.
• Judgment and Decree Compliance (PLJ 2000 Lah. 610):
  • Judgments and decrees must comply with the prescribed methodology of CPC. Non-compliance results in the judgment and decree being deemed illegal.
• Ratable Distribution of Assets (PLJ 2002 SC 254):
  • Directions or orders under certain acts, like the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, are not considered decrees under the CPC and thus cannot be executed as such.

Conclusion:

The term ‘decree’ under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, encompasses a broad range of judicial decisions and is crucial in the execution and review of judgments in civil litigation. Understanding its definition, scope, and implications is essential for legal practitioners and parties involved in civil disputes. The interpretation of ‘decree’ as provided by various judicial precedents further clarifies its application in different legal contexts.

Legal Note on Key Definitions and Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), encompasses a wide array of definitions and provisions that lay the groundwork for civil litigation in Pakistan. This legal note aims to elucidate some key terms defined in the CPC and their judicial interpretations.

Definitions and Judicial Interpretations:

• Decree-Holder (Section 3 of CPC):
  • Defined as a person in whose favor a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made.
• District (Section 4 of CPC):
  • Refers to the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which includes the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court.
• Foreign Court and Judgment (Sections 5 and 6 of CPC):
  • A ‘foreign court’ is a court situated beyond the limits of Pakistan, having no authority in Pakistan.
  • A ‘foreign judgment’ means the judgment of such a foreign court.
• Government Pleader (Section 7 of CPC):
  • Includes any officer appointed by the Provincial Government to perform the functions imposed by the CPC on the Government Pleader and also any pleader acting under their directions.
• Judge and Judgment (Sections 8 and 9 of CPC):
  • ‘Judge’ means the presiding officer of a Civil Court.
  • ‘Judgment’ is the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order (PLJ 1998 Lahore 401). The reasoning behind the judgment is a crucial element for its validity.
• Judgment-Debtor (Section 10 of CPC):
  • Refers to a person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made.
• Legal Representative (Section 11 of CPC):
  • A person who legally represents the estate of a deceased person, including anyone who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased.
• Mesne Profits (Section 12 of CPC):
  • Profits from property wrongfully possessed, which the possessor actually received or could have received with ordinary diligence, along with interest on such profits (PLJ 2003 Peshawar 43; PLJ 1999 Kar. 181; 2003 MLD 1430; PLJ 1992 FSC 153).
• Movable Property (Section 13 of CPC):
  • Includes growing crops. This broad definition encompasses tangible property that can be moved from one place to another.
• Order (Section 14 of CPC):
  • Defined as the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree. This encompasses judicial decisions that do not conclusively determine the rights of the parties.
• Pleader (Section 15 of CPC):
  • Refers to any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court. This includes Advocates, vakils, and attorneys of a High Court.
• Public Officer (Section 17 of CPC):
  • Encompasses a wide range of officers, including judges, persons in the service of Pakistan, military officers, and others performing specific public duties.
• Rules (Section 18 of CPC):
  • Refers to rules and forms contained in the First Schedule or made under sections 122 or 125 of the CPC.
• Share in a Corporation (Section 19 of CPC):
  • Includes stocks, debenture stocks, debentures, or bonds.
• Signed (Section 20 of CPC):
  • In the context of the CPC, except in the case of a judgment or decree, ‘signed’ includes ‘stamped’.
• Subordination of Courts (Section 3 of CPC):
  • Establishes the hierarchy of courts, with the District Court being subordinate to the High Court, and other inferior civil courts being subordinate to both the High Court and District Court.
• Savings (Section 4 of CPC):
  • Ensures that the CPC does not limit or affect any special or local law in force, or any special jurisdiction, power, or procedure prescribed by any other law.
• Application of the Code to Revenue Courts (Section 5 of CPC):
  • Specifies the applicability of the CPC to Revenue Courts, which deal with matters related to the rent, revenue, or profits of land used for agricultural purposes.

Judicial Interpretations:

• Validity of Judgment (PLJ 1998 Lahore 401):
  • A valid judgment must include reasons or grounds for the decision. The reasoning is essential for the judgment to be challenged or upheld in higher forums.
• Mesne Profits (PLJ 2003 Peshawar 43; PLJ 1999 Kar. 181):
  • Decisions related to mesne profits, the profits accruing from wrongfully possessed property, are based on the definition provided in the CPC.

• Pecuniary Jurisdiction (Section 6 of CPC):
  • This section stipulates that, unless expressly provided otherwise, the CPC does not confer jurisdiction on any court for suits exceeding the pecuniary limits of its ordinary jurisdiction. This means that each court has a maximum monetary limit up to which it can adjudicate matters, and this limit must be adhered to unless an exception is explicitly stated.
• Provincial Small Cause Courts (Section 7 of CPC):
  • The CPC’s certain provisions do not extend to courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, or to courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. These exclusions are significant as they delineate the scope and limitations of the Small Cause Courts. Specifically, the exclusions are:
• (a) Parts of the CPC concerning:
• – Suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
• – The execution of decrees in such suits.
• – The execution of decrees against immovable property.
  (b) Specific sections of the CPC:
• – Section 9: Relating to the courts to try suits.
• – Sections 91 and 92: Pertaining to public nuisances and other matters affecting the public.
• – Sections 94 and 95: Concerning temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders, particularly those related to immovable property, injunctions, and the appointment of receivers for immovable property.
• – Sections 96 to 112 and 115: Encompassing appeals and revisions.

Implications:

• The demarcation of pecuniary jurisdiction ensures that courts handle cases within their financial scope, thus maintaining judicial efficiency and order.
• The exclusions for Provincial Small Cause Courts reflect the specialized nature of these courts, which handle minor civil matters. By exempting these courts from certain CPC provisions, the law recognizes their limited scope and the necessity for a simplified process for smaller, less complex cases.

Conclusion:

Sections 6 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, play a pivotal role in defining the jurisdictional boundaries and operational scope of various civil courts in Pakistan, particularly the Provincial Small Cause Courts. Understanding these sections is crucial for legal practitioners and litigants to navigate the civil legal system effectively, ensuring that cases are filed and heard in appropriate courts based on their monetary value and nature.

Legal Note on Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

The jurisdiction of civil courts in Pakistan is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly sections 9 to 12. These sections outline the general jurisdiction of civil courts and certain exceptions. This legal note discusses these provisions with reference to judicial interpretations.

Key Provisions and Judicial Interpretations:

• General Jurisdiction of Civil Courts (Section 9 of CPC):
  • Civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, except those expressly or impliedly barred (PLJ 1999 Kar. 38).
  • This includes suits where the right to property or an office is contested, even if such rights depend on religious rites or ceremonies (PLJ 1995 SC 424).
• Arbitration Clause in Contract (PLJ 1999 Kar. 38):
  • An arbitration clause in a contract does not suspend the jurisdiction of civil courts unless the arbitration clause itself is challenged under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
• Jurisdiction Over Special Matters (Various Citations):
  • In cases involving the change of water supply (1996 CLC 1747), actions of executive functionaries (PLJ 2003 Lahore 1217), or disputes relating to insurance policies (PLJ 2002 Karachi 41), civil courts retain jurisdiction unless specifically barred.
  • Civil courts cannot be invoked merely for the enforcement of penal laws but can redress civil injuries arising from penal breaches.
• Fraud and Misrepresentation (PLJ 2000 SC 1933):
  • Issues of fraud and misrepresentation are generally triable by civil courts unless specifically barred by law.
• High Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction (PLJ 2004 Lahore 291):
  • The High Court can re-appraise evidence and reverse the findings of lower courts in certain circumstances.
• Jurisdiction Over Administrative Actions (PLJ 1998 Kar. 765):
  • Civil courts have jurisdiction to examine the validity of actions or orders passed by administrative or quasi-judicial functionaries, particularly when such actions are without jurisdiction or in excess of it.
• Title Disputes (PLJ 1999 SC (AJ&K) 1):
  • Civil courts are the appropriate forum for resolving disputes related to land titles.

Conclusion:

The jurisdiction of civil courts in Pakistan, as defined under the CPC, is broad and encompasses a variety of civil matters. The courts have the authority to adjudicate a wide range of disputes unless their jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred by law. Judicial decisions have further clarified the scope of this jurisdiction, affirming the general competency of civil courts to handle diverse civil claims, including those involving arbitration, administrative actions, and questions of title and fraud. Understanding these provisions is essential for legal practitioners and litigants in navigating the civil litigation landscape in Pakistan.

Legal Note on Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

The jurisdiction of civil courts in Pakistan is a fundamental aspect of the legal system, as outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This legal note examines various scenarios and judicial interpretations related to the jurisdiction of civil courts, emphasizing the versatility and limitations of their authority.

Key Provisions and Judicial Interpretations:

• Jurisdiction Under Special Acts (PLJ 1979 SC (AJK) 56):
  • Rights and obligations under special acts, like the AJ&K Land Reforms Act (1960), can bar the jurisdiction of civil courts for disputes arising under such acts.
• Matters Prescribed by Specified Authority (PLJ 1980 Pesh. 216):
  • Issues arising out of terms set by a Specified Authority are to be settled by the same authority, indicating a limitation on civil court jurisdiction.
• Matters Investigated by the Mohtasib 
  • Civil courts retain jurisdiction over matters investigated by the Mohtasib (Ombudsman), as there is no provision barring legal proceedings in such cases.
• Ejectment of Tenants Under Ordinance (PLJ 2003 Lahore 771):
  • The jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of tenant ejectment under Ordinance VI of 1959 is impliedly barred by the ordinance’s provisions.
• Non-Execution of Pre-emption Suit Decrees (PLJ 2003 SC 240):
  • Civil courts can entertain suits for the implementation of possession decrees in pre-emption suits, especially when no execution proceedings are initiated.
• Attachment of Property (PLJ 2002 SC 254):
  • Objections regarding the attachment of property are to be filed under specific acts rather than the CPC, showcasing the specialized jurisdiction in certain cases.
• Cancellation and Resumption of Land (PLJ 2003 Lahore 313):
  • Orders for the cancellation and resumption of land do not typically fall within the purview of civil court jurisdiction.
• Evacuee Property Disputes (PLJ 1998 SC (AJK) 49):
  • Civil courts’ jurisdiction is not ousted in evacuee property disputes unless it offends principles laid down in specific cases.
• Environmental Matters 
  • Civil courts have jurisdiction in environmental issues, even with the presence of specialized Environmental Tribunals, depending on the nature of the reliefs sought.
• Religious Matters (PLJ 1998 Kar. 350):
  • Suits involving religious rites and ceremonies, such as the right to worship, are maintainable in civil courts under Section 9 of the CPC.
• Jurisdiction Over Revenue Court Decisions (PLJ 1999 Lah. 1630):
  • Civil courts typically do not interfere with decisions made by Revenue Courts unless those decisions are made without lawful authority or jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

The jurisdiction of civil courts in Pakistan, as governed by the CPC, is extensive but subject to certain limitations and exclusions, especially in cases where special laws or authorities are involved. The judicial interpretations of these provisions have further clarified the scope and boundaries of civil court jurisdiction, reinforcing the need for careful consideration of the appropriate forum for each legal matter. Understanding these nuances is crucial for legal practitioners and litigants in effectively navigating the legal landscape.

Legal Note on the Scope of Jurisdiction in Civil Courts Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

The jurisdiction of civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), extends to a diverse range of civil disputes. However, this jurisdiction is subject to certain limitations, especially when special statutes or forums are involved. This legal note explores various scenarios illustrating the scope and limitations of civil court jurisdiction as per judicial interpretations.

Key Judicial Interpretations and Provisions:

• Constitutional Jurisdiction (PLJ 2001 SC 270):
  • The Constitutional jurisdiction is limited and primarily ascertains if a tribunal or appellate authority had jurisdiction. The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot entertain petitions against orders where factual disputes are pending in civil courts.
• Presumption of Jurisdiction (2010 C. L. C. 146):
  • Jurisdiction of civil courts should be presumed unless a statute explicitly ousts it. Laws affecting the jurisdiction of civil courts are to be construed strictly.
• Securities and Exchange Commission Act Matters 
  • The High Court has jurisdiction to decide controversies under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Civil courts are competent to resolve complicated issues such as rectification of share registers.
• Service Tribunal Jurisdiction (PLJ 2003 SC 350):
  • The Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain matters that are novel appeals against judgments of civil courts.
• Executing Court Status (PLJ 2004 Lahore 528):
  • An executing court is not considered a court of civil jurisdiction, indicating its specific function in the execution of decrees.
• Exclusive Jurisdiction of Created Forums (PLJ 1984 Pesh. 114):
  • Forums with exclusive jurisdiction should adjudicate disputes that fall within their purview, barring civil courts unless the statute states otherwise.
• Company Executives’ Suits (PLJ 1998 Kar. 712):
  • Civil courts can intervene in company affairs in specific situations, like when majority actions deprive minority shareholders or when directors act against the company’s interest.
• Jurisdiction in Libel Suits (P L J 1981 Karachi 480):
  • For libel in newspapers, the suit can be instituted where the newspaper is published or circulated.
• Suit for Declaration and Injunction in Share Acquisition (1999 CLC 1795):
  • Civil courts have jurisdiction to scrutinize the legality of share acquisitions in cases of hostile takeovers, even when regulatory frameworks like the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act are involved.
• Revenue Court Decisions (PLJ 1999 Lah. 1630):
• Civil courts should not interfere in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts unless decisions are made without lawful authority.

Conclusion:

The jurisdiction of civil courts in Pakistan is broad, encompassing various civil matters. However, this jurisdiction is not absolute and is subject to the provisions of special statutes and the establishment of specialized forums. Judicial interpretations have further clarified these boundaries, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the appropriate legal forum for each dispute. Understanding these nuances is crucial for effective legal practice and the administration of justice in civil matters.

Legal Note on Civil Court Jurisdiction in Specific Cases Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

The jurisdiction of civil courts, as delineated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is subject to various interpretations based on the nature of the case and the existence of special laws or authorities. This legal note examines specific cases that highlight the nuances of civil court jurisdiction in Pakistan.

Key Case Analyses and Legal Implications:

• Suit for Partition of Joint Khata (PLJ 2004 Lahore 479):
  • A case involving the partition of agricultural land was initially deemed outside the civil court’s jurisdiction. However, the trial court found that the land had already been partitioned, a fact affirmed by the appellate court without due deliberation.
  • The case was remanded to the District Judge for re-evaluation, emphasizing that even in matters initially thought outside civil jurisdiction, factual determinations can require reconsideration by civil courts.
• West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (PLJ 2003 Lahore 771):
  • The civil court had jurisdiction over an ejectment suit when initially filed. However, during the proceedings, the area became an urban area, bringing the matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.
  • This case illustrates that jurisdiction can shift due to legislative changes, but civil courts retain jurisdiction over cases initiated before such changes unless expressly ousted.
• Authority’s Jurisdiction (PLJ 1979 SC (AJK) 56):
  • When a specific authority’s jurisdiction is provided under a statute, aggrieved parties must seek relief through those authorities, not civil courts, unless it is shown that the authorities acted mala fide or beyond their jurisdiction.
  • This principle underscores the importance of respecting the jurisdictional boundaries established by specialized statutes and authorities.

Conclusion:

Civil court jurisdiction under the CPC is a dynamic and context-dependent aspect of legal practice in Pakistan. While civil courts have broad jurisdiction, specific circumstances, such as the nature of the property in dispute or the enactment of particular statutes, can limit or modify this jurisdiction. Judicial decisions in these matters often involve intricate interpretations of law and fact, demonstrating the complex interplay between general jurisdiction and special legislative provisions. Legal practitioners must carefully consider these nuances to determine the appropriate forum for each case.

Legal Note on Stay of Suit and Res Judicata Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) includes critical provisions related to the stay of suits and the doctrine of res judicata, outlined in Sections 10 and 11 respectively. These sections aim to prevent multiple litigations on the same issue and ensure judicial efficiency and consistency. This note examines these sections with relevant judicial interpretations.

Key Provisions and Judicial Interpretations:

• Stay of Suit (Section 10 of CPC):
  • Section 10 mandates that no court shall proceed with the trial of a suit if the matter in issue is already directly and substantially in issue in another previously instituted suit between the same parties or their representatives (PLJ 1999 Kar. 419).
  • This provision aims to avoid duplication of trials and conflicting decisions on the same cause of action.
  • The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not preclude Pakistani courts from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.
• Essential Conditions for Stay (PLJ 1999 Kar. 419):
  • Five essential conditions for stay include: (1) matter in issue being directly and substantially the same in both suits; (2) the prior suit is before a competent court; (3) the court where the prior suit is pending can grant the relief sought in the subsequent suit; (4) both suits involve the same parties or their representatives; and (5) parties are litigating under the same title in both suits.
• Res Judicata (Section 11 of CPC):
  • Section 11 states that no court shall try any suit or issue already substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and has been heard and finally decided by a competent court.
  • The section includes several explanations clarifying terms like ‘former suit’, competence of the court, matters alleged and denied, and matters that might and ought to have been made ground of defense or attack.
• Application of Res Judicata (Various Explanations in Section 11):
  • Matters not expressly granted in a decree are deemed to have been refused (Explanation V).
  • The competence of a court for res judicata purposes is determined irrespective of any appeal provisions (Explanation II).
  • Litigation in respect of public or common private rights involves all interested parties (Explanation VI).

Conclusion:

Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC play a crucial role in preventing redundant litigation and ensuring judicial consistency. The stay of suit provision safeguards against the possibility of contradictory judgments in different courts, while the doctrine of res judicata upholds the finality of judicial decisions, barring re-litigation of issues already settled by a competent court. Understanding these provisions is essential for legal practitioners to effectively navigate and advise on issues related to concurrent litigation and the finality of judicial decisions.

Legal Note on Stay of Suit and Res Judicata Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

Sections 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), address critical principles in civil litigation: the stay of suit and res judicata, respectively. These provisions aim to ensure judicial efficiency and prevent multiplicity of proceedings and contradictory judgments.

Key Provisions and Judicial Interpretations:

• Stay of Suit (Section 10 of CPC):
  • This section mandates that no court shall proceed with a suit if the matter in issue is directly and substantially in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or their representatives (PLJ 1999 Kar. 419).
  • The provision aims to avoid duplication of trials and conflicting decisions. It applies to suits pending in Pakistan or in any court established by the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court.
  • The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not preclude Pakistani courts from trying a suit on the same cause of action.
• Res Judicata (Section 11 of CPC):
  • Section 11 stipulates that no court shall try any suit or issue already directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, which has been heard and finally decided by a competent court.
  • The explanations to Section 11 define ‘former suit’, competence of the court, and other aspects crucial to determining the applicability of res judicata.
• Applications and Implications:
  • Applicability in Execution Proceedings: Questions related to the jurisdiction of a court must be raised at the earliest; they cannot be introduced for the first time in execution proceedings (1989 M L D 1776).
  • Bank Guarantees: Courts have discretion in granting injunctions concerning the encashment of bank guarantees, considering contractual obligations.
  • Principle of Constructive Res Judicata: This principle applies when a matter has been conclusively decided, and an attempt is made to reopen it in subsequent proceedings (PLJ 2001 Lahore 815).
  • Doctrine of Res Judicata: The doctrine prevents re-litigation of issues that have been finally decided between the same parties (PLJ 2004 Peshawar 299).
• Legal Amendments:
  • The legal amendments referenced pertain to the substitution of certain terms in the CPC by the Central Laws (Statutes Reforms) Ordinance, 1960, and the P.O. 1961, updating the legal framework and jurisdictional references.

Conclusion:

Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC embody fundamental legal principles intended to uphold the finality of judicial decisions and prevent duplicative litigation. Understanding these provisions is crucial for litigants and legal practitioners to navigate the complexities of civil litigation in Pakistan, ensuring adherence to judicial efficiency and consistency. The judiciary’s interpretations of these sections further clarify their application in various legal scenarios.

Legal Note on Res Judicata Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

The doctrine of res judicata, as encapsulated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is pivotal in preventing the re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties. This legal note explores various interpretations and applications of this doctrine based on judicial precedents.

Key Judicial Interpretations and Applications:

• Res Judicata in Parallel Suits (PLJ 2000 Lahore 800):
  • Dismissal of a suit in one district can operate as res judicata for a similar suit in another district involving the same parties and subject matter. An order of dismissal, which involves the same issues and cause of action, is considered a judgment on merits.
• Ejectment of Tenant (PLJ 1993 Karachi 218):
  • The principle of res judicata may not apply in cases where a previous application under a different ordinance was filed and circumstances have significantly changed.
• Essential Requirements (1995 M L D 690):
  • For res judicata to apply, there must be evidence of the previous suit, the nature of the suit, the property involved, and the nature of the controversy between the parties. The doctrine is inapplicable if these requirements are not met.
• Evacuee House Allotment (PLJ 1994 Lahore 111):
  • The principle of res judicata can bar a fresh suit after the dismissal of a writ petition on similar grounds, serving to prevent abuse of the legal process.
• Execution of Decree (2010 M. L. D. 187):
  • Multiple applications for the execution of a decree are permissible, but the principle of res judicata must be observed.
• Implementation of Previously Decided Matter (PLJ 1997 SC (AJK) 202):
  • Res judicata is not applicable when a party seeks the implementation of a matter decided in a previous suit, as long as it does not attempt to reopen the decided matter.
• Incompetent Suit and Duty of Parties 
  • Parties have the responsibility to draw the court’s attention to an incompetent suit. A suit should be dismissed at the earliest stage if found incompetent to avoid wasting judicial resources.
• Object of Section 11 CPC (PLJ 1999 Pesh. 6):
  • The objective of Section 11 is to bring finality to the cause of action and prevent the repetition of the same issues. It includes matters directly related to or ancillary to the subject in issue.
• Pendency of Suit and Constitutional Petition (PLJ 1994 Karachi 261):
  • The dismissal of a constitutional petition on similar grounds does not automatically bar a pending suit, especially when the suit is withdrawn with permission to file afresh.

Conclusion:

The doctrine of res judicata under the CPC is crucial in maintaining the finality of judicial decisions and preventing the multiplicity of litigation. Its application requires careful analysis of the previous suit’s nature, parties, subject matter, and the issues involved. Courts in Pakistan have consistently upheld this principle, ensuring that once a matter is adjudicated upon by a competent court, it should not be re-litigated. Understanding the intricacies of res judicata is essential for legal practitioners to navigate the complexities of civil litigation effectively.

Legal Note on Res Judicata Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

Res judicata, as outlined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), plays a fundamental role in preventing the re-litigation of issues that have already been adjudicated upon. This legal note delves into the doctrine’s application in various contexts based on the given excerpts and relevant judicial decisions.

Key Provisions and Judicial Interpretations:

• Pleadings at Variance in Suits (PLD 2003 Lah. 48):
  • If a court decides a suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the CPC, it constitutes a decision on merits, making a fresh suit on the same cause of action barred under Section 11.
  • The dismissal of a previous suit under similar circumstances binds the plaintiff to the determination, regardless of the variance in pleadings in subsequent suits.
• Application in Tenancy Disputes (PLJ 1993 Karachi 218):
  • The principle of res judicata may not be applicable in certain tenancy disputes under different ordinances, especially where circumstances have changed significantly over time.
• Execution of Decree (2010 M. L. D. 187):
  • The principle of res judicata must be observed in the execution of decrees, implying that the same issue cannot be re-agitated in successive execution applications.
• Subsequent Constitutional Petitions (PLJ 1999 Karachi 791):
  • If issues have been addressed in earlier constitutional petitions, the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata apply to subsequent petitions on similar grounds.
• Dismissal for Non-Prosecution (2002 SCMR 300):
  • The question of res judicata does not arise in cases where the previous suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Section 11 of the CPC applies only if the previous suit was decided on merits.
• Principle of Res Judicata in Service Matters (PLJ 1996 Tr. C (Services) 136):
  • The principle of res judicata bars reconsideration of a matter that has been adjudicated upon on the same cause of action.
• Lis Pendens and Res Judicata (PLJ 2003 Lahore 210):
  • Civil Courts cannot reopen matters concluded by the Supreme Court based on the principle of res judicata and lis pendens.
• Incompetent Suits and Duty of Parties 
  • Parties have a responsibility to alert the court to incompetent suits, and courts should dismiss such suits at the earliest stage.

Conclusion:

Res judicata is a crucial doctrine in the judicial process, aimed at ensuring the finality of decisions and preventing the misuse of court resources through repetitive litigation. Its application requires a careful assessment of the issues involved, the parties to the litigation, and the nature of previous judicial determinations. Courts in Pakistan have upheld this principle, recognizing its importance in maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the legal system. Legal practitioners must consider the implications of res judicata when advising clients and pursuing litigation to avoid redundant and barred claims.

Legal Note on Res Judicata under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction:

The doctrine of Res Judicata, as encapsulated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is pivotal in ensuring judicial efficiency and finality to litigation. This doctrine prevents the same issue, once judicially determined, from being re-litigated between the same parties. The excerpts provided bring forth various interpretations and applications of this principle in different legal contexts.

Key Provisions and Judicial Interpretations:

• Mandatory Provisions and Exceptions (PLJ 1980 S.C. 309):
  • Res judicata can be circumvented in cases of fraud, collusion, or when the previous judgment is a nullity.
  • Parties cannot contract out of res judicata, and courts cannot issue orders preventing its future application.
• Suit Dismissal and Res Judicata (PLD 2003 Lah. 48):
  • A suit dismissed on the principle of res judicata is not merely a technical dismissal but a decision on merits.
  • The essence of res judicata, as articulated in Section 11 of the CPC, is to prevent the same relief from being sought repeatedly.
• Review of Orders and Res Judicata (PLJ 2002 Lahore 1254):
  • An order of the trial court, when merged in the order of the first appellate court and dismissed on merits, becomes final and acts as res judicata.
• Strict Interpretation of Res Judicata (PLJ 1976 AJ&K 131):
  • The rule of res judicata should be strictly interpreted; a trial should not be prevented unless it necessarily involves reopening a decided issue.
• Applications for Rejection of Plaint (2003 CLC 1156):
  • If the first application for rejection of plaint is not decided on merits but dismissed for non-prosecution, it does not bar a second application on the ground of constructive res judicata.
• Implications in Ejectment and Tenant Disputes (PLJ 1993 Karachi 218):
  • The principle of res judicata may not be applicable in ejectment cases under different laws if the circumstances have changed significantly.
• Res Judicata in Execution of Decree (2010 M. L. D. 187):
  • The principle of res judicata must be respected in the execution of decrees, indicating that repetitive applications on the same issue are barred.
• Previous Suit Dismissal and its Impact (PLJ 1996 SC 1718):
  • A previous suit dismissed for non-prosecution does not invoke res judicata for subsequent suits as it is not a decision on the merits of the case.

Conclusion:

Res judicata is a cornerstone principle in civil litigation, upholding the finality of judicial decisions and preventing the misuse of judicial resources. Its application requires careful examination of the merits of previous judgments, the identity of parties, the issues involved, and the judicial forums where these issues were raised. Understanding and correctly applying the doctrine of res judicata is crucial for legal practitioners to ensure that litigation is efficient, final, and just. Misapplication can lead to unnecessary and prolonged litigation, defeating the very purpose of this doctrine.

Legal Note on Res Judicata under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Context of Rent and Ejectment Proceedings

Introduction:

The concept of res judicata, as established in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), plays a crucial role in rent and ejectment proceedings. This doctrine aims to prevent the same matter from being re-litigated in subsequent proceedings, thereby ensuring the finality of judicial decisions and conserving judicial resources. The excerpts provided offer insights into the application of res judicata in various contexts related to rent and ejectment.

Key Provisions and Judicial Interpretations:

• Application in Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (PLJ 1991 Karachi 503):
  • The doctrine of res judicata applies to proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, but not with all its rigor.
  • Where the facts in two proceedings remain substantially identical, and one has attained finality, the doctrine applies to prevent contradictory findings.
• Subsequent Suits and Distinct Causes of Action (PLD 2002 Kar. 333):
  • A subsequent suit for specific performance of a contract is not barred by res judicata if it is based on a distinct cause of action, even if a related suit was previously dismissed.
• Suit under the Specific Relief Act (PLJ 1998 Lahore 484):
  • A suit for recovery of possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act cannot determine questions of title, and thus, a subsequent suit for declaration of title is not barred under Section 11 of the CPC.
• Temporary Injunctions and Res Judicata (2003 CLD 876):
  • A second application for a temporary injunction under similar circumstances may be hit by res judicata unless new circumstances are pleaded or the exigency of the case requires granting of the injunction.
• Ejectment of Tenant and Principle of Res Judicata (PLJ 1991 Karachi 434):
  • In determining whether an ejectment application is barred by res judicata, it is essential to compare the earlier case’s pleadings and defense with the current one.

Conclusion:

In the realm of rent and ejectment proceedings, the application of res judicata requires a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts must evaluate whether the matters in question were directly and substantially in issue in previous proceedings and whether those proceedings have reached a final and conclusive determination. This assessment ensures that the principle of res judicata is applied appropriately, upholding the doctrine’s intent to prevent duplicative litigation and maintain the integrity and finality of judicial decisions. The judicial interpretations cited above demonstrate the nuanced approach required in applying res judicata, particularly in the context of rent and ejectment disputes under various ordinances and laws.

Legal Note on Res Judicata in the Context of Rent and Ejectment Proceedings Under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Introduction:

The principle of res judicata, as enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), plays a significant role in rent and ejectment proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. This legal doctrine aims to prevent the same issue from being tried and adjudicated more than once, thereby ensuring judicial economy and consistency in judicial decisions. The provided excerpts highlight the application of res judicata in various scenarios related to rent and ejectment proceedings.

Analysis of Key Judgments and Legal Provisions:

• Application in Rent Proceedings (PLJ 1991 Karachi 503):
  • The doctrine of res judicata applies to rent proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, although not as rigorously as in other civil suits.
  • When facts in two separate proceedings (one by a previous landlord and the other by successor landlords) regarding the personal requirement of premises remain similar, and one has attained finality, the doctrine precludes different findings in subsequent proceedings.
• Subsequent Suit for Specific Performance (PLD 2002 Kar. 333):
  • A subsequent suit for specific performance of a contract is not barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC, especially when it is based on a distinct cause of action from an earlier dismissed suit.
• Suit Under Specific Relief Act (PLJ 1998 Lahore 484):
  • Questions of title cannot be raised or finally determined in a suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, a subsequent suit for a declaration under Section 42 of the Act is not barred by res judicata, even if the earlier suit was dismissed.
• Grant of Temporary Injunction (2003 CLD 876):
  • A second application for a temporary injunction under similar circumstances can be barred by the principle of res judicata. The applicability of res judicata principles under Section 11 of the CPC depends on whether new circumstances have been pleaded or whether there is a need for granting the injunction due to case exigencies.
• Ejectment of Tenant (PLJ 1991 Karachi 434):
  • In determining whether an ejectment application is barred by res judicata, it is crucial to have a certified copy of the earlier rent case, including the defense, to compare and ascertain what issues are foreclosed due to the principle of res judicata.

Conclusion:

In summary, while the principle of res judicata is applicable in rent and ejectment proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, its application must be carefully examined based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts must evaluate whether the issues in question were directly and substantially in issue in previous proceedings and whether those proceedings have reached a final determination. This approach ensures that res judicata is applied appropriately, maintaining judicial consistency and avoiding unnecessary re-litigation in rent and ejectment disputes.

Legal Note on the Application of Section 10 and Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

Introduction:

The provisions of Sections 10 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), play a crucial role in civil litigation, particularly concerning the withdrawal of suits and the bar to further suits. These sections aim to streamline the process of litigation, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and ensure judicial economy and fairness.

Analysis of Key Legal Provisions and Judgments:

• Withdrawal of Suit for Recovery of Possession (PLJ 1996 AJ&K 72):
  • Section 10 of the CPC prohibits courts from proceeding with a trial if the matter in issue is already directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties.
  • If a plaintiff withdraws a suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit, as per Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the CPC, any subsequent suit on the same subject matter is not maintainable.
  • The principle of Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC requires a plaintiff to include all claims and reliefs related to a cause of action in one suit. Failure to do so precludes them from seeking those reliefs in future suits.
• Bar to Further Suit under Section 12 of the CPC (PLJ 2003 Lahore 702):
  • Section 12(2) of the CPC, introduced by Ordinance X of 1980, imposes a bar on filing a separate suit to challenge a judgment, decree, or order on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction. Instead, the aggrieved party must seek remedy through an application to the court that passed the final judgment, decree, or order.
  • The rationale behind this provision is to prevent the misuse of judicial processes and ensure that judgments and decrees attain finality, subject to appellate remedies.
  • This provision is applicable to decrees passed before its enactment and extends to various legal contexts, including banking courts and arbitration matters, as evidenced by cases like PLJ 2003 Lahore 1651.

Conclusion:

Sections 10 and 12 of the CPC are instrumental in preventing the re-litigation of issues that have been or could have been decided in earlier proceedings. They embody the principles of judicial finality and efficiency. While Section 10 deals with the stay of suits involving issues already pending in other suits, Section 12(2) specifically addresses the challenge of judgments and decrees on certain grounds, directing the aggrieved party to seek redress within the same legal framework instead of instituting new suits. These provisions play a pivotal role in upholding the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that litigants bring forth all their claims and defenses in a single proceeding.

Legal Note on the Application of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in Various Legal Contexts

Introduction:

Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is a critical provision that deals with the challenge to a judgment, decree, or order on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction. This section mandates seeking remedies through an application to the court that passed the final judgment, decree, or order, instead of initiating a separate suit. This provision aims to maintain the finality of judgments and prevent misuse of the judicial process.

Analysis of Key Legal Provisions and Judgments:

• Dismissal of Application under Section 12(2) in Banking Courts (PLJ 2003 Lahore 702):
  • The application of Section 12(2) in banking courts emphasizes the finality of judgments and decrees subject to appellate remedies.
  • In the context of the Banking Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credit, and Finance Act, 1997, an appeal under Section 21 of the Act is not competent against the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC.
• Erroneous Assumption of Law (PLJ 2004 SC 345):
  • A document managed or maneuvered fraudulently with the connivance of revenue authorities, if not challenged before competent courts, attains finality.
  • Any attempt to challenge such documents at a belated stage to restart litigation is discouraged.
• Forum and Jurisdiction Issues (PLJ 2001 SC 1134):
  • The NWFP Pre-emption Act, 1987, under Section 35, poses specific jurisdictional challenges.
  • The High Court’s authority to entertain and decide applications under Section 12(2) depends on whether the revision filed before it was decided on merits.
• Framing of Issue and Evidence (PLJ 1998 Lahore 649):
  • There is no inflexible rule that a court must frame an issue and record evidence for every application under Section 12(2) of the CPC.
  • The court’s approach depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
• Fraud Allegations and the Need for Specifics (PLJ 1998 Karachi 653):
  • Allegations of fraud in an application under Section 12(2) must be specific and substantiated.
  • Mere non-availability of a key document with a revenue authority does not necessarily point to fraud.
• Challenging Decrees on Grounds of Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Lack of Jurisdiction (PLD 2003 Kar. 314):
  • To invoke the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction, a party must approach the court that rendered the final judgment, decree, or order.
  • The concept of “final judgment” is crucial and depends on whether the Supreme Court dismissed the case on technical grounds or decided on merits.
• Application of Section 12(2) in Various Contexts (PLJ 2003 Karachi 219, PLJ 2004 Peshawar 130):
  • The application of Section 12(2) extends to various legal scenarios, including property disputes, arbitration matters, and banking law cases.
  • The High Court or Supreme Court may reopen cases under peculiar circumstances and enable lower courts to address questions of nullity or fraud.

Conclusion:

Section 12(2) of the CPC is pivotal in upholding the finality and integrity of judicial decisions. It prevents the multiplicity of suits by directing aggrieved parties to seek redress within the existing judicial framework, thereby preserving judicial economy and fairness. The application of this provision varies depending on the legal context and the specificities of each case, requiring careful legal interpretation and adherence to procedural requirements.

Legal Note on the Application of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in Various Legal Contexts

Introduction:

Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is an essential legal provision that addresses the dismissal of applications challenging judgments or decrees based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction. This provision plays a critical role in ensuring that challenges to legal decisions are addressed adequately within the judicial process.

Key Legal Provisions and Court Decisions:

• Substantial Questions of Facts and Law (PLJ 2003 Lahore 353):
  • The dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) CPC without framing issues where substantial questions of fact and law are raised can result in a failure of justice.
  • In cases where allegations of fraud and misrepresentation are involved, issues must be framed and evidence recorded to resolve these questions adequately.
• Dismissal of Application under Section 12(2) CPC (PLJ 2003 Lahore 1368):
  • Not every case necessitates the framing of issues and recording of evidence.
  • The nature of the allegations in the application under Section 12(2) CPC determines the mode of disposal, and in some cases, examination of the document in question may suffice without a detailed factual inquiry.
• Suit for Partition and Application for Setting Aside Decree (PLJ 1998 Lahore 649):
  • In partition suits, an application for setting aside a decree on grounds like a previous gift to the petitioner needs to be supported by credible evidence, such as gift deeds.
  • Long silence or failure to object to the suit in the main proceedings, coupled with contradictory evidence, can lead to the dismissal of the application under Section 12(2) CPC.
• Suspension of Operation of Decree (PLJ 2000 Lahore 76):
  • The mere pendency of an application under Section 12(2) CPC against a decree does not automatically suspend its operation.
  • In the absence of a stay order against the execution of the decree, its operation continues, and trial courts should not discharge sureties or halt execution based solely on the pendency of such an application.

Conclusion:

The application of Section 12(2) of the CPC requires careful judicial scrutiny, particularly in cases involving allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. Courts must balance the need for thorough investigation of such allegations with the principle of finality in judgments and decrees. The decision to frame issues and record evidence depends on the specific circumstances of each case, including the nature of the allegations and the available evidence. This approach ensures that justice is served while maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the legal process.

Legal Note on the Conclusiveness and Execution of Foreign Judgments under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

Overview:

Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with relevant court decisions, provide the framework for the recognition and execution of foreign judgments in Pakistan. These sections determine the circumstances under which a foreign judgment is considered conclusive and the presumptions made regarding such judgments.

Key Legal Provisions:

• Section 13 – When Foreign Judgment Not Conclusive:
  • A foreign judgment is conclusive except in the following circumstances:
  • (a) If it is not pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction.
  • (b) If it is not based on the merits of the case.
  • (c) If it is founded on an incorrect view of international law or refusal to recognize Pakistani law when applicable.
  • (d) If the proceedings were opposed to natural justice.
  • (e) If it was obtained by fraud.
  • (f) If it sustains a claim founded on a breach of Pakistani law.
  • Notably, Section 13 distinguishes between the direct executability of judgments from certain jurisdictions (e.g., UK) and the possibility that such a judgment may become unexecutable due to issues such as lack of international jurisdiction (PLD 2003 Kar. 382).
• Section 14 – Presumption as to Foreign Judgments:
  • The court shall presume that a foreign judgment was pronounced by a competent court if a certified copy is produced, unless the contrary is evident.
  • This presumption can be displaced by proving a lack of jurisdiction.

Court Decisions:

• PLD 2003 Kar. 382:
  • Emphasizes that the decree of a foreign court, like that of the UK, may be directly executable in Pakistan, but its executability can be questioned if the foreign court lacked jurisdiction.
  • The judgment highlighted the need for legal amendments to address anomalies in the execution of foreign judgments.
• PLJ 1981 Karachi 254:
  • The court should not appeal over the findings of a foreign court if those findings involve questions of fact or contract interpretation.
  • In this case, the judgment was conclusive, binding, and based on factual conclusions made by the foreign court.

Conclusion:

Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC set a clear criterion for the acceptance and execution of foreign judgments in Pakistan. These sections are pivotal in ensuring that foreign judgments are only given effect if they meet specific standards of fairness, jurisdictional competence, and adherence to Pakistani law. The legal system, as highlighted in PLD 2003 Kar. 382, may require amendments to address complexities in executing foreign decrees, especially considering the evolving dynamics of international law and jurisdictional issues. These provisions, along with judicial interpretations, form the cornerstone of cross-border legal cooperation and enforcement of foreign judicial decisions in Pakistan.

Legal Note on the Place of Suing under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Related Court Decisions

Overview:

Sections 15 and 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), provide directives about the appropriate jurisdiction and forum for the institution of suits. These provisions ensure that suits are instituted in the most suitable court, considering the nature of the case and the convenience of the parties.

Key Legal Provisions:

• Section 15 – Court in which suits to be instituted:
  • This section mandates that every suit should be filed in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. This is to ensure that the judicial system functions efficiently, and higher courts are not burdened with cases that can be dealt with by lower courts.
• Section 16 – Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate:
  • This section specifies that suits related to immovable property must be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is located. This includes suits for recovery, partition, foreclosure, sale or redemption of immovable property, determination of rights or interests in such property, compensation for wrongs to immovable property, and recovery of movable property under distress or attachment.

Court Decisions:

• PLJ 1999 SC (AJK) 239:
  • This case highlights that a suit’s institution date is the date when it was first filed in a competent court, not when it was refiled after being returned for correction. It clarifies that a District Judge can try suits with a pecuniary jurisdiction of less than Rs. 25,000/-, as their jurisdiction is not limited in such cases.
• PLJ 1999 Kar. 274 = PLD 1999 Kar. 1:
  • In this case, it was held that the choice of forum by plaintiffs can be challenged on grounds like mala fides or intent to defeat justice. However, in the absence of such factors, the choice of forum, particularly for actions in personam, is generally upheld.
• PLJ 1998 Kar. 393:
  • This decision emphasizes that for suits related to immovable property, such as those involving mortgage redemption, the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated has the authority to hear the case.
• PLJ 1997 Kar. 313 = PLD 1996 Kar. 411:
  • This ruling clarifies that the High Court, in its original civil jurisdiction, is not bound by Sections 16, 17, and 20 of the CPC. The High Court can exercise jurisdiction in cases where the defendant resides or carries on business within its territorial limits or where part of the cause of action has arisen.
• PLJ 1998 Kar. 800 = 1998 CLC 565:
  • The court held that the mere fact that a matter is sub judice in a foreign court does not oust the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts over property situated in Pakistan.
• PLD 2003 Kar. 45:
  • This case illustrates that for recovery of sale consideration for property situated elsewhere, a suit can be filed in a jurisdiction where part of the cause of action (like payment) occurred, adhering to the principle that the creditor must follow the debtor.

Conclusion:

Sections 15 and 16 of the CPC, along with the judicial decisions interpreting these provisions, provide clear guidelines on the appropriate forum for the institution of various suits. These provisions are crucial for maintaining judicial order and ensuring that cases are heard in the most appropriate and convenient forums for the parties involved. The decisions reinforce the principles of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for efficient and fair administration of justice.

Legal Note on the Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Regarding Place of Suing and Related Court Decisions

Overview:

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), through Sections 17, 18, 19, and 20, provides specific guidelines on the jurisdiction and appropriate forum for instituting different types of suits. These provisions are crucial for ensuring that cases are filed in the most suitable courts, considering the subject matter, the residence of the parties, and the place where the cause of action arose.

Key Legal Provisions:

• Section 17 – Suits for immovable property within different jurisdictions:
  • This section allows a suit concerning immovable property located within the jurisdiction of different courts to be instituted in any court within whose jurisdiction any part of the property is situated. However, the entire claim must be cognizable by such a court.
• Section 18 – Uncertain jurisdiction:
  • If there is uncertainty about the local limits of jurisdiction for immovable property, any court within the potential jurisdiction can record this uncertainty and proceed with the suit. The appellate or revisional court should not allow objections to jurisdiction unless there was no reasonable ground for such uncertainty at the time of the suit’s institution.
• Section 19 – Suits for wrongs to person or movables:
  • This section provides that a suit for compensation for wrongs done to a person or movable property can be instituted either where the wrong was done or where the defendant resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain.
• Section 20 – General provision for place of suing:
  • Suits should be instituted where the defendant resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Corporations are deemed to carry on business at their principal office or at any place where they have a subordinate office, in respect of any cause of action arising at such place.

Court Decisions:

• PLJ 1997 Kar. 313 = PLD 1996 Kar. 411:
  • This case clarifies that the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction is not bound by Sections 16, 17, and 20 of the CPC, underscoring the High Court’s broader jurisdictional authority.
• PLJ 1999 Kar. 274 = PLD 1999 Kar. 1:
  • In this decision, the choice of forum by plaintiffs was upheld, especially in cases of actions in personam, affirming the principle of lex situs in matters of personal actions.
• PLJ 1998 Kar. 393:
  • This ruling emphasizes the jurisdiction of the court where the immovable property is located, particularly in cases of mortgage redemption.
• PLJ 1998 Kar. 800 = 1998 CLC 565:
  • The court held that a matter being sub judice in a foreign court does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts, especially regarding property situated in Pakistan.
• PLD 2003 Kar. 45:
  • This decision illustrates that suits involving recovery of sale consideration for property can be filed where part of the cause of action, such as payment, has occurred.

Conclusion:

The CPC provisions on the place of suing, complemented by various judicial interpretations, offer a comprehensive framework for determining the appropriate jurisdiction for filing suits. These guidelines ensure that suits are filed in courts that are most convenient for the parties and best suited to address the specific legal issues involved. The judicial decisions further interpret and sometimes expand on these provisions, guiding litigants and legal practitioners in deciding the most appropriate forum for their legal actions.

Legal Note on the Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Concerning Cause of Action and Related Court Decisions

Overview:

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly Section 20, outlines the legal framework governing the jurisdiction of courts based on the place where the cause of action arises or where the defendant resides or conducts business. This provision ensures that suits are filed in the most appropriate and convenient courts. The case law provides practical applications of these provisions, guiding litigants and legal practitioners.

Key Legal Provisions and Court Decisions:

• Section 20, CPC – Jurisdiction Based on Cause of Action:
  • According to Section 20 of the CPC, a suit can be instituted in a court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or conducts business, or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
• PLJ 1999 SC (AJK) 366 = 1999 CLC 964:
  • This ruling emphasizes that even a fraction of the cause of action accruing within a court’s jurisdiction is sufficient for it to hear the case. This approach aims to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconvenience to parties.
• PLD 2003 Kar. 382:
  • The court held that jurisdiction can be exercised if the cause of action has accrued within its limits, irrespective of the defendant’s residence.
• PLD 2003 Kar. 45:
  • This case demonstrates that a court has jurisdiction if part of the cause of action, such as payment in a contract, occurs within its territorial limits.
• PLJ 1998 SC 1808 = 1998 SCMR 1618 (Foreign Award):
  • The court clarified that an action can be maintained in a Municipal Court when a cause of action, either wholly or in part, arises within its jurisdiction, regardless of the defendant’s residency.
• PLJ 2000 Lahore 2448 (Government Case):
  • This decision notes that Section 20(c) of the CPC applies to the government, and the court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises has the territorial jurisdiction to try such cases.
• PLJ 1995 SC 669:
  • The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction vests in the court where the cause of action, wholly or in part, accrued. This was applied in a case involving the detention of goods at a dry port.
• PLJ 2000 Lah. 2242:
  • In this case, the court ruled that the Banking Court in Pakistan had jurisdiction over loan recovery proceedings against a petitioner who was a citizen of England, based on the conduct of the petitioner and the applicable law.
• 2002 CLD 527:
  • It was held that the territorial jurisdiction of a court can only be decided based on the case made out by the plaintiff and not the defense set up by the defendant.
• PLJ 1981 Supreme Court 735 (Suit by or against Corporation):
  • This ruling clarified that a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its head office or branch office in respect of a cause of action arising at that place.

Conclusion:

The provisions of the CPC, particularly Section 20, alongside the judicial interpretations, provide a comprehensive legal framework for determining the appropriate jurisdiction based on the location of the cause of action and the residence of the defendant. These guidelines ensure that suits are filed in courts most convenient for the parties and capable of addressing the specific legal issues involved. The case law plays a vital role in interpreting these provisions, offering practical guidance for litigants and legal practitioners.

Legal Note on the Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Concerning Jurisdiction, Transfer, and Withdrawal of Suits

Overview:

Sections 21, 22, and 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), address critical aspects related to the jurisdiction of courts, the transfer and withdrawal of suits, and the power of appellate courts in this regard. The case law provides a practical interpretation of these provisions.

Key Legal Provisions and Court Decisions:

• Section 21, CPC – Objections to Jurisdiction:
  • This section stipulates that objections regarding the place of suing must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the court of the first instance. If such objection is not raised timely, appellate or revisional courts will not entertain it unless there is a consequent failure of justice.
  • PLJ 2001 SC 377: It distinguishes between objections to territorial jurisdiction, which can be waived, and competence of the court, which cannot be ignored. This case clarifies that objections about territorial jurisdiction can be waived.
• Section 22, CPC – Power to Transfer Suits:
  • Section 22 empowers defendants to apply for the transfer of a suit to another court if it could have been instituted in more than one court. The court, after considering objections from other parties, decides the appropriate jurisdiction.
• Section 23, CPC – Application for Transfer:
  • This section outlines where applications for transfer should be made, depending on the courts’ hierarchical structure and geographical jurisdiction.
  • PLD 2002 Peshawar 30: This decision specifies that the High Court to which an application for transfer lies can transfer a civil suit from its jurisdiction to another High Court. In family cases, the jurisdiction to transfer cases between courts under different High Courts vests in the Supreme Court.
• Section 24, CPC – General Power of Transfer and Withdrawal:
  • This section provides the High Court or the District Court with the authority to transfer or withdraw any suit, appeal, or proceeding at any stage. The courts can either retry the transferred suit or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.
  • Sub-section (3): Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges are deemed to be subordinate to the District Court.
  • Sub-section (4): A Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes is deemed to be a Court of Small Causes for the purposes of such suit.

Conclusion:

Sections 21, 22, and 24 of the CPC, along with the corresponding judicial interpretations, offer a comprehensive framework for addressing issues related to the jurisdiction of courts, the ability to object to the place of suing, and the power of higher courts to transfer or withdraw suits. These provisions are designed to ensure that litigation is conducted in the most appropriate forum, taking into account the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice. The case law serves as a practical guide, elucidating the application of these provisions in various legal scenarios.

Legal Note on Sections 21, 22, and 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

1. Section 21 – Objections to Jurisdiction:

• Key Provision: This section stipulates that any objection concerning the place of suing must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court. If not raised timely, appellate or revisional courts will not entertain such objections unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
• Court Decisions:
  • PLJ 2001 SC 377: Clarifies the distinction between objections to territorial jurisdiction (which can be waived) and objections to the competence of the court (which cannot be ignored). This case demonstrates that territorial jurisdiction objections are waivable, unlike objections to a court’s competence.
  • PLJ 2004 Lahore 1818: Emphasizes the importance of raising jurisdictional objections at the earliest instance and the concept of waiver in jurisdictional matters.

2. Section 22 – Power to Transfer Suits:

• Key Provision: This section allows a defendant to apply for the transfer of a suit to another court, provided the suit could have been instituted in more than one court. The court receiving such an application decides the appropriate jurisdiction after considering objections from other parties.
• Relevance: This provision ensures flexibility and fairness in litigation, enabling suits to be transferred to a more convenient or appropriate forum.

3. Section 23 – To What Court Application Lies:

• Key Provision: This section outlines the appropriate appellate court where an application for the transfer of a suit should be made. It depends on whether the courts in question are subordinate to the same appellate court, the same High Court, or different High Courts.
• Court Decisions:
  • PLD 2002 Peshawar 30: This case clarifies that the High Court from whose jurisdiction a civil suit is sought to be transferred is the appropriate court for transfer applications. In cases of family suits between courts under different High Courts, the Supreme Court holds the jurisdiction.

4. Section 24 – General Power of Transfer and Withdrawal:

• Key Provision: This section empowers the High Court or the District Court to transfer or withdraw any suit, appeal, or proceeding at any stage. The court may retry the transferred suit or continue from where it was left off.
• Subsections (3) and (4): These subsections clarify the status of Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges and the handling of suits transferred from Courts of Small Causes.

Conclusion:

Sections 21, 22, 23, and 24 of the CPC collectively provide a comprehensive framework for addressing jurisdictional objections, transfer, and withdrawal of suits. They aim to ensure that litigation is conducted in the most appropriate forum, balancing the interests of justice with the convenience of the parties. The judicial interpretations further elucidate these provisions, providing clarity on their practical application in different legal contexts.

Legal Note on Sections 4(1), 24, and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the Context of Rent Matters and Transfer of Cases

1. Applicability in Rent Matters (Section 4(1), 24, and 151 CPC):

• Key Provision: Sections 24 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, generally deal with the transfer of cases and the inherent powers of the court, respectively. However, as per legal interpretations, these provisions are not applicable in rent matters.
• Court Decisions:
  • PLJ 1998 Lah. 1341 = 1998 CLC 1879: This judgment explicitly states that provisions of Section 24 and 151 CPC do not apply to rent matters, thereby restricting the High Court’s power to transfer rent cases under Section 24.
  • PLJ 1988 Kar. 252: Reinforces the notion that the High Court cannot exercise its powers under Section 24 of CPC for the transfer of rent cases.

2. Avoidance of Conflicting Decisions (Section 24 CPC):

• Court Decision (2001 MLD 1024): When two suits involving the same parties and property are pending before different courts (High Court and Civil Judge), to avoid conflicting decisions, the suit before the Civil Judge may be transferred to the High Court. This approach is taken to maintain consistency in judicial findings.

3. Powers of Additional District Judge (Section 6, W.P. Civil Courts Ordinance):

• PLJ 1980 Lahore 394: Clarifies that the Additional District Judge is a court subordinate to the District Judge as per Section 6 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962.

4. Financial Institutions Ordinance and Transfer of Suit (Sections 2(b)(ii) & 5, and Section 24 CPC):

• PLJ 2003 Lahore 381: Discusses the implications when the High Court, under Section 24 CPC, transfers a banking suit from a Banking Court to itself. It highlights jurisdictional limitations under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.

5. Forum to Apply for Transfer (Section 24 CPC):

• PLJ 1994 Lah. 425: Addresses the procedural aspect of where to file a transfer petition, emphasizing that the petition should be filed at the appropriate Bench as per Rule 3 of the Rules framed under Article 198.

6. General Power of Transfer and Withdrawal (Section 24 CPC):

• PLJ 2004 Lahore 1477: Demonstrates the application of Section 24 in family law cases, focusing on the convenience of females and minors in transfer applications.

7. Grounds for Transfer (Section 24 CPC):

• Various Cases (PLD 1975 Kar. 59, NLR 1988 Civil Lah. 413, etc.): These cases illustrate different grounds on which the transfer of cases can be sought, including embarrassment, avoidance of bias, and the pursuit of justice.

Conclusion:

Sections 4(1), 24, and 151 of the CPC, when applied to rent matters and the transfer of cases, present a complex legal landscape. The courts have interpreted these sections to exclude rent matters from their ambit, emphasizing the need for specialized handling of such cases. Additionally, the decisions highlight the discretionary power of courts under Section 24 CPC to transfer cases to ensure justice, fairness, and to avoid conflicting decisions, albeit with certain limitations and considerations. The jurisprudence underscores the importance of context-specific application of these legal provisions, balancing judicial efficiency with the rights and convenience of parties involved.

Legal Note on Sections 24, 24-A, and Related Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

1. Notice Requirement in Transfer of Cases (Section 24 CPC):

• Key Provision: Under Section 24 of the CPC, a District Judge is required to give notice to the other party before deciding on the transfer of a case. This requirement is crucial to ensure fairness and transparency in judicial proceedings.
• Court Decisions:
  • 2001 CLC 1319; 1979 CLC 613: These cases highlight that deciding a case under Section 24 without notifying the other party would constitute an irregularity, particularly if no prejudice is proved.

2. Powers of the High Court to Transfer Cases:

• PLJ 1996 Lah. 1169 = 1996 CLC 1427: The High Court possesses broad powers to transfer matters under Section 24 CPC, Section 151 CPC (inherent powers), and under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan. This encompasses both suo motu actions and responses to applications.

3. Jurisdictional Competence and Transfer (Section 24 CPC):

• PLD 1975 Kar. 59: A valid transfer order requires the original case to be pending in a court competent to try it. Sections 15 to 20 CPC deal with the forum of suits, and Section 24 assumes compliance with these sections at the institution stage.

4. High Court’s Jurisdiction for Transfer:

• 2001 CLC 1319: The High Court has extensive authority under Section 24 CPC to transfer cases beyond the territorial limits of a district for administrative reasons, aligning with the pursuit of justice and fair play. This power is equated with the power granted under Article 203 of the Constitution.

5. Appearance of Parties on Transfer (Section 24-A CPC):

• Legal Amendment (1962 Ordinance): Section 24-A, inserted by the 1962 amendment, outlines procedures for parties’ appearance when a suit is transferred. The transferring court must fix a date for parties to appear either before itself or the transferee court.
• Court Decision (PLJ 2001 SC 226): In a case transferred to another rent controller, the transferee court

Legal Note on Provisions Regarding Institution of Suits, Summons, Discovery, and Related Matters under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

1. Institution of Suits (Section 26 CPC):

• Key Provision: Suits are instituted by presenting a plaint or as prescribed by rules. This section is the foundational step in initiating legal proceedings in civil matters.

2. Summons to Defendants (Section 27 CPC):

• Court Decision – PLJ 1990 Lah. 274: A defect in the mode of service of summons, if it does not prevent the defendant from appearing and filing a defense, is considered a mere irregularity without vitiating consequences. This underscores the importance of ensuring that defendants are adequately informed of proceedings while acknowledging minor procedural lapses.

3. Service of Summons in Another Province (Section 28 CPC):

• Mechanism: Summons can be sent for service to a court in another province as per prescribed rules. The court receiving the summons proceeds as if it were issued by itself, highlighting the inter-provincial cooperation in legal proceedings.

4. Service of Foreign Summonses (Section 29 CPC):

• Provision: Civil or Revenue Court summonses issued outside Pakistan can be served within Pakistan, provided they are from courts established or continued by the Federal Government or recognized by the Provincial Government.

5. Power to Order Discovery and the Like (Section 30 CPC):

• Court Decision – PLJ 1995 Lah. 309 = PLD 1995 Lah. 321: Non-production of a document can significantly affect the outcome of a trial. The court has the power to order the production of documents, and failure to comply can lead to penal consequences. This decision emphasizes the court’s proactive role in evidence gathering and the obligation of parties to comply.

6. Summons to Witness (Section 31 CPC):

• Application: Provisions applicable to summonses issued to defendants are equally applicable to summonses for witnesses. This ensures consistency in the process of summoning individuals to court.

7. Penalty for Default (Section 32 CPC):

• Enforcement Measures: The court can enforce the attendance of a person through various measures like arrest warrants, property attachment and sale, fines (up to two thousand rupees as amended in 1994), and imprisonment for non-compliance. This reflects the court’s authority to compel compliance with its orders.

These provisions collectively establish a comprehensive framework for the initiation and conduct of civil proceedings, ensuring that parties are properly notified and have the opportunity to present their case, while also granting courts adequate powers to manage proceedings effectively.

Legal Note on Judgment and Decree, and Interest under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

1. Judgment and Decree (Section 33 CPC):

• Key Provision: After hearing a case, the court is required to pronounce a judgment, which is followed by a decree. This process underscores the finality and formalization of the court’s decision.
• Court Decision – PLJ 1994 Pesh. 45 (DB) = PLD 1994 Pesh. 161: The decision emphasizes the importance of decree preparation following the judgment. The court held that it is the decree, not the judgment, which is executable and appealable. The failure to draw up a decree frustrates the entire scheme of the CPC. This case also highlights the use of the court’s inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to rectify situations where procedural lapses might otherwise cause injustice.

2. Interest (Section 34 CPC):

• Provision for Interest in Decrees: This section empowers the court to include interest in monetary decrees. The court may order interest on the principal sum from the date of the suit to the date of the decree and further interest from the date of the decree to the date of payment.
• Rates and Periods: The rate of interest is to be determined by the court and can be applied for the period before the suit, from the suit to the decree, and from the decree to payment.
• Silence on Interest: If a decree is silent about further interest from the date of the decree to payment, it is deemed that the court has refused such interest. In such cases, a separate suit for this interest is not permissible.

Implications and Legal Interpretation:

• Finality of Decree: The drawing up of a decree is crucial as it signifies the finality of the court’s decision and forms the basis for execution and appeals.
• Mandatory Nature: Section 33 mandates the preparation of a decree following a judgment, ensuring that the court’s decision is formally recorded and enforceable.
• Interest as a Component: Section 34 allows the inclusion of interest in monetary decrees, reflecting the time value of money and compensation for delays in payment.
• Discretion of Court: The court has the discretion to decide the rate of interest and the periods for which it is applicable, allowing for flexibility based on the case’s specifics.
• Avoiding Separate Suits for Interest: The provision prevents the filing of separate suits for interest post-decree, promoting judicial efficiency and avoiding unnecessary litigation.

Together, these provisions establish a structured approach to the final stages of a civil suit, emphasizing the importance of formal decrees and providing guidelines for the inclusion of interest in monetary judgments.

Legal Note on Award by Arbitrator, Interest on Decree, and Related Provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

1. Award by Arbitrator with Interest (Section 34 CPC):

• Jurisdictional Competence of Arbitrator: Arbitrators do not inherently have the authority to award interest unless it is specifically included in the terms of reference or the claim before them.
• PLJ 1999 Lah. 1285: This case clarified that the arbitrator could not grant interest when it was neither claimed nor allowed in the preliminary decree. The comparison of an arbitrator’s powers with those of a court under Section 34 CPC was found inappropriate, as an arbitrator operates under the principles of arbitration law, not as a court in the traditional sense.

2. Claim after Decree (Section 152 & Section 34 CPC):

• PLD 2003 Pesh. 66: The refusal to amend a decree under Section 152 CPC to include interest was upheld. It was determined that if a decree is silent about post-decree interest, it is deemed that interest was refused as per Section 34(2) CPC.

3. Post-Award Interest (Section 34 CPC):

• PLJ 2001 SC 647: The Supreme Court held that modifying a decree to include post-award interest by the executing court is unjustified if the decree is silent on this aspect, as per Section 34(2) CPC.

4. Compound Interest:

• PLJ 2004 SC 236: The Supreme Court, with mutual consent, modified the interest rate in a judgment to 8%, indicating the court’s authority to amend judgments regarding interest rates.

5. Entitlement to Interest or Mark-Up:

• PLD 2003 Karachi 405: Plaintiffs seeking recovery under contract provisions are entitled to simple interest as notified by the State Bank of Pakistan from the filing of the suit until final payment.

6. Essentials – Award of Interest (Section 34 CPC):

• PLD 2003 SC 290: Interest for the period prior to the lawsuit is only awardable if permitted by substantive law or specified in writing. The decree-holder is entitled to interest from the suit’s date.

7. Discretion in Granting Interest:

• PLJ 1997 SC 1976: The award of interest pendente lite and post-decree is discretionary, and a court is not obligated to grant interest on the adjudged sum.

8. Appellate Court’s Interference in Interest Award:

• PLJ 1998 Lah. 237: Appellate courts generally do not interfere with the trial court’s discretion in granting interest unless exercised arbitrarily.

9. Interest on Interest – Misuse Concerns:

• PLJ 2002 SC (India) 18: Concerns about misuse of Section 34 by delaying lawsuits are baseless due to limitations on filing suits and court powers to assess parties’ conduct.

10. Notice to Decree-Holder Regarding Deposit (Order XXI, Rule 1 CPC):

• PLD 2003 SC 290: The decree-holder is justified in demanding interest if not notified about the decretal amount’s deposit in court.

11. Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam:

• PLJ 2000 Lah. 1370: The High Court does not have jurisdiction to address questions of “Ribbah” (interest) being against Islamic injunctions.

12. Scope of Interest and Profit or Mark-Up:

• PLD 2003 Karachi 405: Courts cannot grant interest or mark-up unless there is a prior agreement for such payment.

These decisions and provisions indicate the nuanced application of interest in civil litigation under the CPC, highlighting the distinction between arbitrator’s powers and court’s jurisdiction, the discretionary nature of awarding interest, and the impact of specific contractual terms and statutory provisions on such awards.

Legal Note on Sections 34-A and 34-B of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

1. Section 34-A: Interest on Public Dues

• Purpose: This section addresses the interest applicable to public dues in civil litigation.
• Applicability:
  • Sub-section (1): If the court believes a suit was initiated to avoid paying public dues by the plaintiff, it can order the payment of interest on these dues upon dismissal of the suit. The interest rate is set at two percent above the prevailing bank rate.
  • Sub-section (2): If the court finds the recovery of public dues from the plaintiff unjustified, it may order the payment of interest on the recovered amount at a rate of two percent above the prevailing bank rate while disposing of the suit.
• Definitions:
  • ‘Bank rate’ is defined as per the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956.
  • ‘Public dues’ include dues of entities owned or controlled by the Federal or Provincial Governments or any local authority.
• Legal Amendment: Added by Ordinance X of 1980.

2. Section 34-B: Interest, etc., on Dues of Banking Company

• Purpose: This section deals with the interest and returns on money decrees involving banking companies, specifically concerning loans.
• Provisions:
  • Clause (a): For interest-bearing loans, the decree includes interest at the contracted rate or at a rate of two percent above the bank rate, whichever is higher, from the date of the decree until payment.
  • Clause (b): For loans on the basis of mark-up, lease, hire-purchase, or service charges, the decree must include the contracted rate or the latest rate of the banking company for similar loans, whichever is higher.
  • Clause (c): For loans based on profit and loss participation, the decree must provide a return at a rate not less than the profit paid by the banking company on six-month term deposits based on profit and loss participation, deemed just and reasonable by the court.
• Explanation: The ‘bank rate’ in clause (a) is as defined in Section 34-A.
• Legal Amendment: Added by Ordinance LXIII of 1980.

Analysis and Implications:

• Section 34-A serves as a deterrent against the misuse of the legal system to evade public dues. It ensures that plaintiffs are held accountable for such dues while also safeguarding against unjustified recoveries from them.
• Section 34-B aims to safeguard the financial interests of banking companies in litigation involving loan repayments. It ensures that decrees for money due to banking companies include an appropriate interest or return, reflecting the contractual agreement and prevailing financial rates.
• These sections reflect a balance between protecting public and banking interests and ensuring fairness in financial transactions through the judicial process. They are particularly relevant in cases involving financial disputes, loan recoveries, and public dues, providing clear guidelines for courts in decreeing interest and returns.
• Legal Amendments: The introduction of these sections through ordinances underscores their importance in addressing specific issues related to public dues and banking transactions in the context of civil litigation in Pakistan.

Legal Note on Section 35 and 35-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

1. Section 35: Costs

• Purpose: This section governs the awarding of costs in civil litigation.
• Key Provisions:
  • Discretion of Court: The court has full discretion to decide who pays the costs, out of which property, and to what extent.
  • Written Reasons: If the court decides that costs should not follow the event (i.e., the losing party does not automatically pay costs), it must state its reasons in writing.
  • Interest on Costs: The court may award interest on costs at a rate not exceeding six percent per annum.
• Court Decision Example: In the case cited, the trial court was criticized for not awarding costs despite finding the plaintiff’s claim justified (PLJ 1997Lah. 1162). This emphasizes the need for courts to follow the mandate of Section 35 in awarding costs.

2. Section 35-A: Compensatory Costs in Respect of False or Vexatious Claims or Defences

• Purpose: To penalize parties for bringing false or vexatious claims or defenses.
• Key Provisions:
  • Application: Applies to any suit or proceeding, including execution proceedings, but not to appeals.
  • Conditions: The objection must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the court must be satisfied of the justice of the objection.
  • Monetary Limit: The maximum amount for compensatory costs is capped at twenty-five thousand rupees or the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction limit, whichever is less.
  • No Criminal Exemption: An order under this section does not exempt the party from criminal liability.
• Court Decision Examples:
  • Objections in Appeal: Objections under Section 35-A cannot be raised for the first time in appeals (PLJ 1996 Pesh. 159).
  • Appellate Court Powers: Appellate courts do not have the power to award special costs under Section 35-A (PLJ 1995 Lah. 476).

Analysis and Implications:

• Section 35 underscores the court’s broad powers in determining costs and ensures that the decision-making process is transparent and justifiable. The provision for interest on costs is an additional tool to ensure fair compensation for the prevailing party.
• Section 35-A serves as a deterrent against frivolous litigation. It emphasizes the need for parties to bring forth genuine claims and defenses, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial process.
• Legal Amendments: Amendments over time, such as the increase in the monetary limit for compensatory costs, reflect an evolving legal system responsive to the need for effective deterrents against frivolous litigation.
• Implications for Litigants: These sections highlight the importance of genuine litigation practices and caution parties against bringing unfounded claims or defenses, with potential financial consequences.
• Judicial Responsibility: Courts are expected to exercise their discretion judiciously, balancing the need to deter frivolous claims with the imperative of not unduly penalizing legitimate litigation.

Legal Note on Part II (Execution General) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

1. Section 36: Application to Orders

• Purpose and Scope: Section 36 extends the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the execution of decrees to the execution of orders. This section implies that orders issued by a court can be executed following the same procedures as decrees.
• Court Decision: In PLD 2002 Kar. 542, it was held that an order passed in a suit can be executed under the provisions of Section 36, thereby affirming the applicability of this section to court orders.

2. Section 37: Definition of Court which Passed a Decree

• Clarification of Terminology: This section defines the ‘Court which passed a decree’ as including the court of the first instance, particularly in appellate cases, and, in situations where the original court ceases to exist or lacks jurisdiction, the court that would have jurisdiction if the suit were to be instituted at that time.
• Court Decision: In PLJ 1999 Kar. 834, it was interpreted that execution applications pertaining to High Court orders should be filed in the court of first instance, underlining the operational mechanism of this section.

3. Section 38: Court by which Decree may be Executed

• Execution Authority: Decrees can be executed either by the court which passed them or by another court to which they are sent for execution. This provision ensures flexibility in the execution process.

4. Section 39: Transfer of Decree

• Conditions for Transfer: This section allows for the transfer of a decree for execution to another court based on various conditions such as the residence of the person against whom the decree is passed, the location of their property, or the court’s discretion.
• Multiple Grounds for Transfer: The decree can be transferred for reasons like the judgment-debtor’s presence within the new court’s jurisdiction, or if the property involved is located within that jurisdiction.

5. Section 40: Transfer of Decree to Court in Another Province

• Inter-Provincial Execution: Deals with the execution of decrees across provincial boundaries, subject to rules specific to each province.

6. Section 41: Result of Execution Proceedings to be Certified

• Duty to Report Execution: The executing court is required to inform the court which passed the decree about the execution status or reasons for non-execution, ensuring a clear communication channel between courts.

7. Section 42: Powers of Court in Executing Transferred Decree

• Powers of the Executing Court: The executing court has the same powers as if the decree had been passed by itself. This includes powers like transferring the decree, proceeding against legal representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor, and acknowledging the assignment of a decree.

8. Legal Amendments and Additional Provisions

• Section 42 has been expanded by amendments to include additional specific powers for the executing court, such as recognizing the assignment of a decree and permitting execution against non-recognized partners in a firm.

Implications and Legal Interpretation:

• Flexibility in Execution: These sections collectively provide a comprehensive framework for the execution of decrees and orders, offering flexibility and efficiency in the enforcement of court judgments.
• Ensuring Compliance: The execution process is crucial in ensuring that court judgments are not merely symbolic but are effectively enforced. These provisions reinforce the authority of the judicial system in realizing this objective.
• Inter-Court Coordination: The transfer provisions and the requirement for certification help in maintaining coordination and communication between different courts, ensuring that the execution process is smooth and unambiguous.
• Autonomy of Executing Court: By equipping the executing court with ample powers, these sections ensure that the court is not impeded by jurisdictional limitations in carrying out its duties.

Legal Note on Sections 43, 44-A, and 46 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

1. Section 43: Execution of Decrees Passed by British Courts in Places to Which Part II Does Not Extend or in Foreign Territory

• Purpose: This section allows for the execution of decrees passed by Civil Courts established in areas of Pakistan where the provisions relating to execution do not extend. Such decrees can be executed within the jurisdiction of any Court in Pakistan, provided the original court cannot execute it within its jurisdiction.
• Implications: This provision ensures that decrees passed in areas with different procedural rules or outside the standard jurisdictional framework can still be enforced across Pakistan.

2. Section 44: Execution of Decree Passed by Courts of Acceding States

• Status: Section 44 has been omitted by Ordinance XXVII of 1981. This omission reflects changes in the political and legal landscape, particularly the integration of acceding states into Pakistan and the harmonization of their judicial systems with the national framework.

3. Section 44-A: Execution of Decrees Passed by Courts in the United Kingdom and Other Reciprocating Territory

• Enforcement of Foreign Decrees: This section allows for the execution of decrees from superior courts in the United Kingdom or any reciprocating territory, as if they were decrees passed by District Courts in Pakistan.
• Certification and Conditions: Along with the certified copy of the decree, a certificate stating the extent to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted is required. The executing court must refuse execution if the decree falls within exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13.
• Legal Amendments: Section 44-A was added by Act VIII of 1937.
• Court Decisions: In PLD 2003 Kar. 382, it was noted that decrees from UK courts may face execution challenges in Pakistan if they lack jurisdiction in an international sense, despite being executable under this section.

4. Section 45: Execution of Decrees in Foreign Territory

• Status: Section 45 was omitted by Ordinance XXVII of 1981. The omission indicates a shift in the legal framework, possibly due to changes in international law or bilateral agreements concerning the execution of judgments.

5. Section 46: Precepts

• Precept for Attachment: This section allows a court that passed a decree to issue a precept to another competent court for the attachment of the judgment-debtor’s property specified in the precept.
• Duration and Procedure: The attachment under a precept shall not continue for more than two months unless extended or the decree is transferred to the attaching court and a sale order is applied for.
• Scope and Use: This provision is a tool for decree-holders to secure assets of the judgment-debtor in a different jurisdiction, ensuring effective enforcement of the decree.

Conclusion:

• Adaptability and Enforcement: Sections 43 and 44-A demonstrate the adaptability of the CPC in enforcing decrees passed outside the traditional jurisdictional framework, including those from foreign courts, ensuring the global enforceability of legal decisions.
• Legal Evolution: The omission of Sections 44 and 45 reflects the evolving nature of legal systems and the need to adapt to changing political and legal landscapes.
• Utility of Precepts: Section 46 provides a valuable mechanism for decree-holders to attach property in different jurisdictions, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the execution process.
• Judicial Harmony: The provisions highlight efforts to maintain judicial harmony and mutual enforcement recognition between Pakistan and other territories, particularly reciprocating ones like the UK.

Legal Note on Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section 47: Questions to be Determined by the Court Executing Decree

Overview:

Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, addresses the jurisdiction and authority of the executing court in handling disputes arising from the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree. It mandates that all questions related to these aspects, which arise between the parties or their representatives, are to be resolved by the court executing the decree and not through a separate lawsuit.

Key Provisions:

• Determining Questions in Execution Proceedings: Section 47(1) states that the executing court is responsible for settling all disputes between the parties regarding the execution process. This includes any issues related to the discharge or satisfaction of the decree.
• Proceedings Treated as Suit: Under Section 47(2), the executing court has the discretion to treat a proceeding under this section as a suit, or vice versa, and may order the payment of additional court fees if necessary.
• Representation Questions: Section 47(3) allows the executing court to determine if a person is the representative of a party, relevant to the execution of the decree.

Court Decisions and Application:

• Specific Performance Decrees: In PLD 2003 Lah. 102, it was held that a decree for specific performance does not automatically transfer the title of the property. The judgment-debtor himself can execute the necessary instrument transferring the title to the decree-holder, satisfying the decree without court execution proceedings.
• Execution and Satisfaction: As per PLJ 1975 Qta. 209; PLD 1975 Qta. 29, Section 47 applies to the discharge or satisfaction of decrees, and any order in this context is appealable under Section 96.
• Limitations on Execution Court: The executing court cannot re-determine liabilities or go behind a decree (2002 MLD 861). It must execute the decree as it is unless it is patently a nullity (PLJ 2002 Peshawar 77).
• Matters of Title and Possession: In  2001 MLD 1621, it was established that questions of title and possession arising during execution should be decided by the executing court, not through a separate suit.
• Treatment of Suit as Execution Proceeding: A suit filed for enforcement of rights under a decree can be treated as proceedings under Section 47, subject to limitations (PLJ 1999 Kar. 449 = 1999 CLC 415).

Conclusion:

Section 47 of the CPC plays a crucial role in ensuring that all disputes relating to the execution of decrees are resolved within the framework of the execution proceedings. It vests the executing court with broad authority to handle various issues arising during the execution process and prevents multiplicity of legal proceedings by barring separate suits on matters that fall within its scope. The court decisions highlight the practical application and interpretation of this section, ensuring effective and efficient execution of decrees.

Legal Note on Selected Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Related to Execution of Decrees

1. Judicial Sale and Its Sanctity (2001 CLC 1267):

The concept of judicial sale under the Civil Procedure Code involves the sale of property by a court through a public auction as part of executing a decree. The sanctity of such sales is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the judicial process. Overturning a judicial sale based on a higher offer after the auction can undermine the finality and stability of judicial orders, affect commercial morality, and might encourage parties to disregard their commitments. The principle upheld is that commitments, whether by individuals or through court proceedings, should be honored.

2. Law Reforms Ordinance and S. 47 CPC (PLJ 2004 Lahore 78):

Applications filed under Section 47 of the CPC, which deals with questions related to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of decrees, are subject to the provisions of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. If an appeal against the dismissal of such applications is not filed, the intra-court appeal may not be competent, and the objections can be dismissed.

3. Liability of Minor Defendants (PLJ 2003 Quetta 24):

In cases involving minors, their liability under a decree is limited to the extent permitted by their legal guardian. If a guardian exceeds their authority, such as creating a mortgage without court sanction, minors cannot be held liable beyond the specified limits in the decree.

4. Limitation and Appeal (PLJ 1999 Kamchi 605):

For execution applications, the limitation period is calculated from the date of the appellate court’s decree if an appeal is filed against the original decree. The appellate court’s decree supersedes the lower court’s decree.

5. Maintainability and Section 47 CPC (PLJ 2003 SC 240):

A separate suit for implementing a decree for possession, particularly when no execution proceedings are filed within the limitation period, may not be maintainable under Section 47 CPC. This section consolidates all questions related to execution into the execution proceedings themselves.

6. Modification of Decree by Execution Court (PLJ 1996 Lahore 1451):

The executing court is bound to execute the decree as it is. It cannot modify the decree or interpret it beyond its explicit terms. Any attempt by the executing court to alter the terms of a final and binding decree is outside its jurisdiction and can be set aside by a higher court.

Conclusion:

The execution of decrees under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is a critical phase in the civil litigation process. The decisions made in the execution phase must respect the sanctity of judicial orders, adhere to the limitations imposed by law, and ensure that the rights and liabilities of parties, especially vulnerable groups like minors, are justly addressed. The role of executing courts is circumscribed to the faithful implementation of decrees without overstepping into areas such as re-adjudication or modification of the decrees’ terms.

Legal Analysis of Selected Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on Execution of Decrees

• Non-Filing of Appeal Against Judgment and Decree (2002 MLD 861):
  • Validity of Execution: If a judgment-debtor does not file an appeal or an application for rectification or reviewing a judgment, raising objections later in the executing court that the decree is coram non judice (not in front of a competent court) and hence should not be executed, is not valid.
  • Executing Court’s Role: The executing court is primarily responsible for executing the existing decree. If the decree is found erroneous or void for lack of jurisdiction, the appropriate remedy is to seek modification through proper legal channels.
  • Conclusion: Objections regarding the validity of a decree must be raised through appeals or specific applications for rectification. The executing court cannot refuse to execute a valid decree unless it is patently void or passed without jurisdiction.
• Plea of Waiver by Judgment Debtor (PLJ 2004 Lahore 1438):
  • Instalment Decree and Penalty Clause: In decrees involving instalments with a penalty clause, the decree-holder has the right to execute the decree for the full amount upon default. However, if the decree-holder elects to accept delayed payments without objection, it constitutes a waiver of the right to invoke the penalty clause.
• Execution and Satisfaction of Decree (PLJ 2002 Lah. 1536):
  • Executing Court’s Jurisdiction: Questions related to the execution and satisfaction of the decree, including those concerning title and possession, must be decided by the executing court.
  • Bar on Separate Suits: Separate suits on matters that fall under the executing court’s purview are expressly barred under Section 47.
  • Remand for Adjudication: Cases where courts have refused to decide on such matters citing reasons like possession delivery and decree satisfaction are to be remanded for decision in accordance with the law.
• Scope of Section 47 CPC (PLJ 1980 Lahore 724; PLJ 1999 Kar. 605):
  • Attachment and Execution: All questions relating to the attachment of property in execution of a decree fall under the jurisdiction of the executing court.
  • Questioning Executability of Decree (PLD 2001 SC 131): The executing court can question the executability of a decree if it’s a legal nullity, passed by a court without jurisdiction, or violates legal provisions.
• Treating Subsequent Suit as Application (2001 MLD 1044; PLJ 2001 Lahore 153):
  • Validity Under Section 47(2) CPC: While Section 47 bars suits on matters pertaining to decree execution, it allows the executing court to treat such a suit as an application.
  • Conversion of Suit to Execution Petition: The court can treat any execution petition as a suit or a suit as an execution petition, subject to objections related to limitation or jurisdiction.
• Symbolic vs. Physical Possession (PLJ 2003 Lahore 1143):
  • Nature of Possession in Decree: In cases where the decree is for a share in joint property and not a specific property, the decree-holder is entitled to symbolic possession rather than physical possession.

Conclusion:

The execution of decrees under the CPC involves a strict adherence to the principles and provisions outlined in the Code. The executing court has a specific mandate to execute existing decrees and cannot delve into matters that should be addressed through appeals or specific rectification applications. Issues of waiver, execution scope, and the nature of possession are also governed by the executing court’s jurisdiction and the decree’s content.

Legal Note on Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Execution Barred in Certain Cases

Overview of Section 48:

Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, stipulates the time limitations for the execution of decrees, excluding decrees granting injunctions. According to this provision, no order for the execution of a decree can be made upon a fresh application presented after the expiration of six years from either the date of the decree or the date of default under the decree.

Subsections and Legal Implications:

• Subsection (1) of Section 48:
  • Standard Limitation: Establishes a six-year limitation period for executing a decree from the date of the decree or the date of default.
  • Exceptions: This subsection does not apply to decrees granting injunctions.
• Subsection (2) of Section 48:
  • Exceptions to the Rule: Details the circumstances under which the six-year limitation can be extended:
  • a. Fraud or Force: If the judgment-debtor, through fraud or force, has prevented the execution of the decree within six years preceding the application for execution.
  • b. Reference to Limitation Act: Ensures that this section does not limit or affect the operation of Article 183 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908.

Court Decisions and Interpretations:

• PLJ 2003 Peshawar 120: Clarifies that the special law (North West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987) prevails over the general procedure outlined in the CPC. Section 148 CPC, therefore, does not extend the time for deposit in pre-emption matters.
• PLJ 2002 Lahore 1589: Emphasizes that Banking Courts must follow the six-year limitation prescribed by Section 48 of CPC, despite the Banking Court’s contention that the Limitation Act 1908 does not apply.
• 2002 CLD 787: Holds that an execution application filed within six years from the date of the decree is timely and valid.
• PLJ 1999 Kar. 468: Asserts that a fresh execution application should be filed within six years from the date of the decree, not from the date of dismissal of the first application.
• PLJ 2004 Lahore 1320: Discusses the concept of avoiding technicalities and deciding cases on merits, emphasizing the discretion under Section 148 CPC to allow belated affidavits in support of applications.
• 2010 M.L.D. 187: Addresses the principle of res judicata in the context of multiple execution applications, asserting that while multiple applications can be filed, they must respect the principle of res judicata.
• PLJ 2002 Lahore 110: Notes that while courts have discretion under Section 148 CPC to extend time for compliance, this does not apply where there is deliberate non-compliance.

Conclusion:

Section 48 of the CPC establishes a fundamental limitation period for executing decrees, subject to specific exceptions. The courts have interpreted this provision to balance the need for timely execution of decrees while also allowing for exceptions in cases of fraud or force. The judicial interpretations emphasize adherence to the procedural timelines, underscoring the importance of executing civil decrees within the legal framework provided by the CPC.

Legal Note on Sections 49, 50, 51, and 52 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Transferees, Legal Representatives, and Execution

Overview:

Sections 49 to 52 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, deal with the rights and liabilities of transferees and legal representatives in the context of the execution of decrees.

Section 49: Transferee

• Principle: Every transferee of a decree is subject to the same set of equities that the judgment-debtor could have enforced against the original decree-holder.
• Implication: This ensures that any defense, set-off, or counterclaim that the judgment-debtor could have claimed against the original decree-holder can also be claimed against the transferee.

Section 50: Legal Representative

• Subsection (1): When a judgment-debtor dies before the full satisfaction of a decree, the decree-holder may apply for its execution against the legal representative of the deceased.
• Subsection (2): The legal representative’s liability is limited to the extent of the property of the deceased that has come into their possession and has not been disposed of properly. The Court executing the decree has the authority to compel the legal representative to produce accounts for ascertaining liability.

Section 51: Power of Court to Enforce Execution

• Powers: The Court can order execution of the decree in various ways, including delivery of property, attachment and sale, arrest and detention in prison, appointing a receiver, or in any other manner required by the nature of the decree.
• Proviso and Explanation: Added by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1936, these provide safeguards and conditions for the arrest and detention of a judgment-debtor.

Court Decisions:

• PLJ 2000 Karachi 129: Clarifies that Section 51 CPC empowers Courts to execute decrees through various methods, but these must not conflict with existing laws.
• PLJ 2000 Kar. 129: States that a petitioner cannot be detained in prison without fulfilling the requirements of Section 51 CPC and Order XXI Rule 40 CPC.
• PLJ 1973 Kar. 147: Highlights that mere inability of a judgment-debtor to pay the decretal amount is not a ground for arrest.

Section 52: Enforcement of Decree Against Legal Representative

• Subsection (1): Decrees against a party as a legal representative of a deceased person for payment of money out of the deceased’s property can be executed by attaching and selling such property.
• Subsection (2): If no such property remains in possession of the judgment-debtor and they fail to satisfy the Court regarding the proper application of the deceased’s property that came into their possession, the decree may be executed against them personally to the extent of their failure.

Court Decisions:

• PLJ 2003 Quetta 24: The decree against a deceased judgment-debtor can only be executed to the extent of the property left by them. Legal representatives are not responsible beyond the property inherited.
• PLJ 2001 AJ&K 45: Discusses the implications of Section 52 in the context of a property transaction made during the pendency of a suit challenging the title of the first vendee.

Conclusion:

These sections collectively establish the framework for dealing with issues related to the execution of decrees against transferees and legal representatives. The provisions aim to balance the rights and obligations of all parties involved, ensuring that decrees are executed fairly while protecting the interests of legal representatives and transferees. Courts have interpreted these sections to uphold this balance and have provided necessary safeguards, especially in the context of the execution of decrees involving detention of judgment-debtors.

Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

This legal note elaborates on the specified sections of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and their implications.

Section 53: Liability of Ancestral Property

Section 53 addresses the liability of ancestral property for the debts of a deceased ancestor under Hindu law. It states that for the purposes of sections 50 and 52, property in the hands of a son or other descendant, which is liable under Hindu law for the payment of the deceased ancestor’s debt, shall be deemed to be the property of the deceased. This means that such property is considered to have come to the hands of the son or descendant as their legal representative, making it subject to the same liabilities as the property of the deceased.

Section 54: Partition of Estate or Separation of Share

Section 54 deals with the partition of undivided estates assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government or the separation of a share of such an estate. The section mandates that such partition or separation must be conducted by the Collector or a gazetted subordinate deputed by the Collector, in accordance with the law in force at the time. This provision ensures that the process is managed by a competent authority and adheres to the relevant legal framework.

Section 55: Arrest and Detention

Section 55 provides for the arrest and detention of a judgment-debtor in execution of a decree. Key points include:

1. A judgment-debtor can be arrested at any time and must be brought before the court promptly, which may order detention for up to one year for simple imprisonment.
2. The section includes several provisos to protect the judgment-debtor’s rights, such as prohibiting entry into a dwelling house after sunset and before sunrise and ensuring that women who are not judgment-debtors and who observe purdah are given notice and time to withdraw before entry.
3. It also allows for the immediate release of the judgment-debtor if they pay the decree amount and arrest costs to the arresting officer.
4. The Provincial Government may declare by notification that certain persons or classes of persons are exempt from arrest if it poses a danger or inconvenience to the public.

Section 56: Prohibition of Arrest or Detention of Women

Section 56 explicitly prohibits the arrest or detention of women in the execution of a decree for the payment of money. This provision protects women from imprisonment for debt recovery, reflecting a policy to safeguard women’s rights and dignity.

Section 58: Release from Detention

Section 58 stipulates conditions under which a person detained in prison for execution of a decree must be released before the expiry of the detention period:

(a) If the amount specified in the warrant is paid to the officer in charge of the prison. (b) If the decree against the person is fully satisfied. (c) If the person who applied for the detention requests the release.

The court’s order is required for such a release, ensuring judicial oversight in the process.

Section 59: Release on Ground of Illness

This section, now omitted, previously dealt with the release of detainees on grounds of illness, indicating that earlier provisions allowed for humane treatment of detainees based on their health conditions.

The above sections of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, outline significant aspects of the execution process, particularly focusing on the treatment of property, the arrest and detention of judgment-debtors, and specific protections afforded to women and those with health concerns. The amendments and omissions noted indicate ongoing legislative efforts to update and refine the procedural framework in response to evolving societal norms and judicial considerations.

Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

This legal note explicates the provisions concerning attachment under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, highlighting the intricacies of the law as applicable to various scenarios.

Section 60: Property Liable to Attachment and Sale in Execution of Decree

Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, delineates the types of property that can be attached and sold in the execution of a decree. According to subsection (1), the following types of property are subject to attachment and sale:

• Lands, houses, or other buildings
• Goods, money, bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds, or other securities for money
• Debts, shares in a corporation, and all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor

However, there are specific exemptions outlined in the proviso to subsection (1), which include but are not limited to:

• Necessary wearing apparel, cooking vessels, beds, and bedding of the judgment-debtor and his family, and personal ornaments as per religious usage
• Tools of artisans, implements of husbandry, and such cattle and seed-grain necessary for an agriculturist’s livelihood
• Houses and buildings belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him
• Books of account
• A mere right to sue for damages
• Rights of personal service
• Stipends and gratuities allowed to Government pensioners or payable from any service family pension fund
• Wages of labourers and domestic servants
• Salary to the extent of the first hundred rupees and half of the remainder

Further, specific categories of income, such as the pay and allowances of persons under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and compulsory deposits under the Provident Funds Act, 1925, are also exempt from attachment.

Section 61: Partial Exemption of Agricultural Produce

Section 61 empowers the Provincial Government to exempt portions of agricultural produce from attachment or sale, necessary for the due cultivation of land and support of the judgment-debtor and his family until the next harvest. This provision ensures that agriculturists retain sufficient resources to continue their livelihood and sustenance.

Section 62: Seizure of Property in Dwelling House

Section 62 provides procedural safeguards during the seizure of property in a dwelling house:

1. No entry is allowed after sunset and before sunrise.
2. No outer door of a dwelling house can be broken open unless it is occupied by the judgment-debtor, who refuses access.
3. Special provisions are made for rooms occupied by women observing purdah, ensuring they are notified and given time to withdraw before entry.

Section 63: Property Attached in Execution of Decrees of Several Courts

Section 63 addresses situations where property not in court custody is under attachment by multiple courts. The court of the highest grade, or if there is no grade difference, the court that first attached the property, shall receive or realize such property and adjudicate any claims or objections.

Section 64: Private Alienation of Property After Attachment

Section 64 voids any private transfer, delivery, or payment concerning attached property against claims enforceable under the attachment. This includes claims for the rateable distribution of assets. A recent court decision underscored this principle by prohibiting the transfer or creation of third-party interests in attached property until further orders of the court (2002 CLC 1228).

These provisions collectively ensure a structured and fair process in executing decrees, balancing the need for debt recovery with the protection of essential personal and livelihood assets of the judgment-debtor.

Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

This legal note elucidates the provisions concerning the sale of property in execution of decrees under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and the related judicial interpretations.

Section 65: Purchaser’s Title

Section 65 specifies that when immovable property is sold in execution of a decree and the sale becomes absolute, the property is deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time it is sold, not from the time the sale becomes absolute. This provision clarifies the point at which the title of the property transfers to the purchaser, ensuring legal certainty. Judicial decisions have underscored that the rights of an auction-purchaser are contingent upon the outcome of any objection petition filed regarding the sale. The auction-purchaser’s claim either succeeds or fails based on the result of such a petition (2003 Lawvision 177 = 2003 CLD 646).

Section 66: Suit Against Purchaser Not Maintainable on Ground of Purchase Being on Behalf of Plaintiff

Section 66 prohibits the maintenance of suits against individuals claiming title under a purchase certified by the court on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plaintiff or someone through whom the plaintiff claims. However, it allows for suits to obtain a declaration that the name of the purchaser was inserted fraudulently or without the real purchaser’s consent. It also does not bar third-party claims against the property on the basis that it is liable to satisfy a claim against the real owner.

Section 67: Power for Provincial Government to Make Rules as to Sales of Land in Execution of Decrees for Payment of Money

Section 67 empowers the Provincial Government to create rules, via notification in the official Gazette, regarding the sale of certain types of land interests in execution of decrees for money. This is particularly relevant where such interests are uncertain or undetermined, making it difficult to fix their value. The Provincial Government may continue or modify any special rules regarding land sales that were in force at the commencement of the Code in any local area.

Section 68: Power to Prescribe Rules for Transferring to Collector Execution of Certain Decrees

Section 68 allows the Provincial Government to declare that in any local area, the execution of decrees involving the sale of immovable property shall be transferred to the Collector. This delegation of authority is intended to streamline the execution process for specific types of decrees.

Section 69: Provisions of Third Schedule to Apply

Section 69 mandates that the provisions of the Third Schedule apply to all cases where the execution of a decree has been transferred to the Collector under Section 68. This ensures that a standardized procedure is followed.

Section 70: Rules of Procedure

Section 70 grants the Provincial Government the authority to make rules consistent with the preceding provisions for:

(a) The transmission of the decree from the court to the Collector, and the regulation of the Collector’s procedure in executing the decree. (b) Conferring upon the Collector or his subordinates the powers of the court in the execution of the decree. (c) Providing for the appeal and revision of orders made by the Collector or his subordinates.

The rules made under this section effectively bar the jurisdiction of civil courts over matters delegated to the Collector, ensuring administrative efficiency and judicial clarity.

Section 71: Collector Deemed to be Acting Judicially

Section 71 stipulates that in executing a decree transferred to him under Section 68, the Collector and his subordinates shall be deemed to be acting judicially. This provision confers a quasi-judicial status upon the Collector, ensuring that the execution process adheres to judicial standards.

Section 72: Where Court May Authorise Collector to Stay Public Sale of Land

Section 72 provides that in local areas without a declaration under Section 68, if the property attached consists of land or a share in land, and the Collector represents that public sale is objectionable, the court may authorise the Collector to satisfy the decree through temporary alienation of the land instead of proceeding to a sale. The provisions of Sections 69 to 71 and any applicable rules will apply in such cases.

Court Decision

A notable court decision (PLJ 1978 Lah. 545) highlighted the application of Section 141 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, where the Collector did not represent to the court that the public sale of land was objectionable. This underscores the interplay between the Civil Procedure Code and other relevant statutes in the execution of decrees involving immovable property.

Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

This legal note elaborates on the provisions related to the distribution of assets and resistance to execution under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, with relevant judicial interpretations.

Section 73: Proceeds of Execution-Sale to be Rateably Distributed Among Decree-Holders

Section 73 establishes the procedure for the rateable distribution of assets held by a court when multiple decree-holders have applied for the execution of decrees against the same judgment-debtor. Key provisions include:

1. Rateable Distribution: When assets are held by the court and multiple decree-holders have applied for execution before the receipt of such assets, the assets (after deducting the costs of realization) shall be distributed rateably among all such decree-holders.
2. Exceptions and Provisos:
   • Subsection (a): A mortgagee or incumbrancer is not entitled to share in any surplus from the sale of property subject to a mortgage or charge.
   • Subsection (b): The court may, with the consent of the mortgagee or incumbrancer, order the sale of property free from the mortgage or charge, giving the mortgagee or incumbrancer the same interest in the proceeds as they had in the property.
   • Subsection (c): When immovable property is sold to discharge an encumbrance, the proceeds are first applied to sale expenses, then to discharge the amount due under the decree, next to any subsequent encumbrances, and finally, rateably among decree-holders who have applied for execution prior to the sale and have not obtained satisfaction.
3. Rights to Sue: If assets are paid to a person not entitled to receive them, any entitled person may sue to compel a refund.
4. Government Rights: This section does not affect any right of the Government.

Judicial Interpretation: In a notable case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that a direction under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, could not be deemed a decree under Section 2(2) of the CPC, and therefore, applications under Section 73 were not applicable (PLJ 2002 SC 254).

Section 74: Resistance to Execution

Section 74 addresses situations where the execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed. Key points include:

1. Imprisonment for Resistance: If the court is satisfied that the decree-holder or purchaser has been resisted or obstructed without just cause by the judgment-debtor or another person, the court may order simple imprisonment for up to thirty days and direct that the decree-holder or purchaser be put into possession of the property.
2. Police Assistance: The court may direct the officer-in-charge of the police station within the jurisdiction where the judgment-debtor resides or where the property is located to provide necessary police assistance for the execution of the decree.

Judicial Interpretation: In a landmark case, the Supreme Court of AJ&K ruled that a decree must either be challenged or acted upon according to its terms. Furthermore, the court emphasized that provisions of Order XXI, Rule 99, and Section 74 of the CPC are not available to a petitioner who has been dispossessed and is yet to prove their claim to the property (PLD 2003 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 14; PLJ 1998 Lah. 1088; PLD 1998 Lah. 411; NLR 1998 Civil 388).

Conclusion

Sections 73 and 74 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provide a structured framework for the distribution of assets and handling resistance to execution. These provisions ensure fairness in the execution process and safeguard the rights of decree-holders, while judicial interpretations further clarify their application and enforceability.

Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

This legal note addresses the provisions under Part III and Part IV of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, concerning incidental proceedings and suits in particular cases, supplemented with relevant judicial interpretations.

Part III: Incidental Proceedings

Section 75: Power of Court to Issue Commissions

Section 75 empowers the court to issue commissions, subject to prescribed conditions and limitations. The court may issue a commission for the following purposes:

(a) To examine any person. (b) To make a local investigation. (c) To examine or adjust accounts. (d) To make a partition.

Section 76: Commission to Another Court

Section 76 outlines the procedure for issuing a commission to another court within the same province but outside the issuing court’s jurisdiction for the examination of a person. The receiving court must examine the person and return the executed commission with the evidence to the issuing court, unless otherwise directed.

Section 77: Letter of Request

Section 77 allows the court, in lieu of issuing a commission, to issue a letter of request for examining a witness residing outside Pakistan.

Section 78: Commission Issued by Foreign Courts

Section 78 provides that the procedures for executing and returning commissions for the examination of witnesses apply to those issued by or at the instance of:

(a) Courts situated beyond Pakistan but established or continued by the Federal Government’s authority. (b) Courts of any state or country outside Pakistan.

Part IV: Suits in Particular Cases

Section 79: Suits by or Against the Government

Section 79 specifies that in suits by or against the Government, the following entities shall be named as plaintiff or defendant:

(a) For suits involving the Federal Government, “Pakistan.” (b) For suits involving a Provincial Government, “the Province.”

Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court has held that no suit can be filed against a provincial government without impleading the province as a party. This procedural precondition is mandatory, and failure to comply renders the suit non-maintainable (2010 SCMR 115).

Section 80: Notice

Section 80 mandates that a suit against the Government or a public officer must be preceded by a two-month notice. The notice must be delivered to a Secretary of the Federal Government, the Collector, or relevant officials, specifying the cause of action, plaintiff’s details, and relief claimed. The plaint must contain a statement that such notice has been delivered.

Judicial Interpretation: In a case where a suit was filed against Pakistan Railways without the required notice, the court held that any ex-parte proceedings and decrees passed before the expiration of the prescribed period were void and without jurisdiction (PLJ 1998 Lah. 936).

Section 81: Exemption from Arrest and Personal Appearance

Section 81 provides that in suits against public officers regarding acts done in their official capacity:

(a) The defendant shall not be liable to arrest nor his property to attachment, except in execution of a decree. (b) The court may exempt the defendant from appearing in person if it deems their absence from duty detrimental to public service.

Section 82: Execution of Decree

Section 82 specifies that decrees against the Government or public officers must include a timeframe for satisfaction. If unsatisfied within this period, the case shall be reported to the Provincial Government, and execution shall not proceed until three months have elapsed from the date of the report.

Suits by Aliens and Against Foreign Rulers, Ambassadors, and Envoys

Section 83: When Aliens May Sue

Section 83 permits alien enemies residing in Pakistan with Federal Government permission, and alien friends, to sue as if they were Pakistani citizens. Alien enemies without such permission or residing in a foreign country cannot sue.

Section 84: When Foreign States May Sue

Section 84 allows foreign states to sue in Pakistani courts, provided they are recognized by the Federal Government, and the suit aims to enforce a private right vested in the head of such state or an officer in their public capacity.

Section 85: Persons Specially Appointed by Government to Prosecute or Defend for Ruler of Foreign State

Section 85 provides that persons specially appointed by the Federal Government to prosecute or defend suits on behalf of foreign rulers are recognized agents who can appear and act in such suits.

Section 86: Suits Against Rulers

This section was omitted by the State Immunity Ordinance of 1981.

Section 86-A: Suits Against Diplomatic Agents

Section 86-A restricts suits against diplomatic agents except in cases involving private immovable property, succession, or professional/commercial activities outside their official functions. Diplomatic agents may waive immunity, and the initiation of proceedings by them precludes invoking immunity against counterclaims.

Judicial Interpretation: The Lahore High Court ruled that the British High Commission, as a diplomatic mission, is immune from adjudication by Pakistani courts in cases of contract breaches, reinforcing the diplomatic immunity provisions (PLJ 2000 Lah. 1974).

Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

This legal note elucidates the provisions under Part V of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, regarding interpleader suits and suits relating to public matters, including pertinent judicial interpretations.

Part V: Interpleader

Section 88: Where Interpleader Suit May Be Instituted

Section 88 addresses the scenario where two or more persons claim the same debt, sum of money, or property, movable or immovable, from another person who claims no interest therein other than for charges or costs. The person holding the property may institute an interpleader suit against all claimants to obtain a judicial decision on the rightful claimant and indemnity for himself.

Proviso: If a suit is already pending where the rights of all parties can be decided, an interpleader suit cannot be instituted.

Judicial Interpretation: There is limited direct judicial interpretation on Section 88, but its application is straightforward, providing a mechanism for resolving disputes where multiple parties claim the same property, ensuring the holder is not at risk of multiple liabilities.

Special Proceedings: Arbitration

Section 89: Arbitration

This section has been omitted by the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act X of 1940), Section 49 and the Third Schedule.

Special Case

Section 90: Power to State Case for Opinion of Court

Section 90 allows persons to agree in writing to state a case for the opinion of the court. The court then tries and determines the case in the manner prescribed, providing a formal mechanism for obtaining a legal opinion on a specific matter agreed upon by the parties.

Suits Relating to Public Matters

Section 91: Public Nuisances

Section 91 provides that in the case of a public nuisance, the Advocate-General or two or more persons with the Advocate-General’s written consent may institute a suit for a declaration, injunction, or other appropriate relief, even if no special damage has been caused.

Provisions:

1. Subsection (1): Allows suits for public nuisances by the Advocate-General or with his consent.
2. Subsection (2): Clarifies that this section does not limit any existing right to sue independently of its provisions.

Judicial Interpretation: The High Court has noted the need to amend Section 91 to facilitate public interest litigation, similar to Indian provisions. It has been emphasized that individuals can bring suits without the Advocate-General’s consent for issues like nuisance and wrongful acts affecting the public (2003 Lawvision 59 = 2003 CLC 632).

Section 92: Public Charities

Section 92 pertains to alleged breaches of trusts for public charitable or religious purposes. The Advocate-General or two or more interested persons with his consent may institute a suit to obtain various forms of relief, including the removal or appointment of trustees, directions for account and inquiries, or authorizations for managing trust property.

Provisions:

1. Subsection (1): Specifies the reliefs that can be obtained, such as removing trustees, appointing new trustees, directing accounts and inquiries, and other necessary reliefs.
2. Subsection (2): Prohibits suits for such reliefs except in conformity with Subsection (1).

Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court has emphasized the mandatory nature of obtaining the Advocate-General’s consent for suits involving public trusts. Failure to do so renders the suit incompetent (2003 Lawvision 70 = 2003 CLC 1156). Additionally, the character of the relief sought, not the plaintiff’s character, determines whether a suit falls under Section 92 (2002 CLD 188).

Section 93: Exercise of Powers of Advocate-General

Section 93 allows the powers conferred on the Advocate-General under Sections 91 and 92 to be exercised by the Collector or an appointed officer, with the Provincial Government’s previous sanction. This delegation facilitates the administration of public nuisance and public charity suits.

Conclusion

These provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provide essential mechanisms for resolving disputes involving multiple claimants, public nuisances, and breaches of public charitable trusts. Judicial interpretations have reinforced the procedural requirements and the scope of these provisions, ensuring their effective application.

Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

This legal note elucidates the provisions under Part VI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, concerning supplemental proceedings, and includes relevant judicial interpretations.

Part VI: Supplemental Proceedings

Section 94: Supplemental Proceedings

Section 94 empowers the court to take necessary actions to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. The court may, as prescribed:

(a) Issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply, commit him to civil prison. (b) Direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and place it at the court’s disposal or order the attachment of any property. (c) Grant a temporary injunction, and in case of disobedience, commit the person guilty thereof to civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold. (d) Appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property. (e) Make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the court to be just and convenient.

Judicial Interpretation:

1. Disposal of Property Pending Trial in Criminal Case: The seizure of vehicles by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in connection with a criminal case against the petitioner for securing loans fraudulently from the National Development Finance Corporation (NDFC) was challenged. The court ruled that Section 7 of the 1984 Ordinance prohibits the transfer or creation of charge on any property owned by the accused without the special court’s approval. General mandatory injunctions are rarely granted and must align with Sections 94 and 151 of the CPC (PLJ 2000 Kar. 88 = 2000 MLD 1384).
2. Interim Relief: In a suit filed by beneficiaries against Mutawallis to restrain them from developing trust property, the High Court granted an interim injunction suspending the construction contract. The court held that to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, it could grant such orders under Section 94(e) CPC, and this discretion was upheld on appeal (2003 Lawvision 69 = 2003 CLC 771).
3. Interlocutory Orders: Section 94 grants civil courts judicial powers to issue interlocutory orders. The court can make interim orders if it deems them just, proper, and convenient, even when mala fides are alleged in the plaint (PLJ 1998 Kar. 784 = 1998 CLC 134).
4. Mandatory Injunction: The nature of mandatory injunctions is covered under Section 55 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC. Courts can grant such injunctions under Sections 94 and 151 CPC to prevent breach of obligation and compel performance of certain acts (PLJ 1997 Kar. 212 = 1997 CLC 302).
5. Scope of Section 94: The court may grant a status quo ante if the breach of obligation is evident and causes immediate and irreparable injury to the plaintiff. However, in cases where the agreement is not enforceable, the court should not create situations that no longer exist when the litigation commenced (2002 Lawvision 137 = 2002 CLD 77).
6. Status Quo Ante: Courts can grant orders to maintain status quo ante, especially in cases involving easements or severance of basic necessities by public authorities, like illegal disconnection of utilities (2002 CLD 77).

Section 95: Compensation for Obtaining Arrest, Attachment, or Injunction on Insufficient Grounds

Section 95 provides that if a suit involves an arrest, attachment, or temporary injunction granted under Section 94, and:

(a) The court finds these actions were applied for on insufficient grounds, or (b) The plaintiff’s suit fails without reasonable or probable grounds,

The defendant may apply for compensation. The court may award a reasonable amount, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, for expenses or injury caused to the defendant, provided it does not exceed the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction.

Legal Amendments: The compensation limit was substituted by the Act of 1994 to ten thousand rupees.

Conclusion

Sections 94 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, empower the courts to take proactive measures to prevent justice from being thwarted and to compensate for unwarranted legal actions. Judicial interpretations provide clarity on the application of these provisions, ensuring they are used judiciously to balance the interests of justice and the rights of individuals.

Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

This legal note elucidates the provisions under Part VII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, concerning appeals from original decrees, including pertinent judicial interpretations.

Part VII: Appeals

Section 96: Appeal from Original Decree

Section 96 outlines the conditions under which an appeal can be made against an original decree passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction.

1. General Right of Appeal (Subsection 1): An appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such court unless otherwise expressly provided by the Code or any other law for the time being in force.
2. Appeal Against Ex Parte Decree (Subsection 2): An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
3. Consent Decrees (Subsection 3): No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the court with the consent of the parties.

Judicial Interpretation:

1. Additional Evidence: The High Court has held that documents required to be produced, such as judicial records, affidavits, and municipal records, must be relevant to the disputed property for them to aid the appellants even if allowed to be produced. This was seen in PLJ 2004 Peshawar 255.
2. Appeal by a Stranger to Suit or Proceedings: The Supreme Court and other courts have clarified that while Sections 96 and 104 do not explicitly state who may prefer an appeal, any person adversely affected by a decree or order can challenge it in an appeal even if not made a party to the original suit or proceedings (PLD 1969 SC 65).
3. Appreciation of Evidence: The first appellate court is justified in giving its own findings on issues after properly appreciating the evidence on record if the trial court fails to do so. This principle was upheld in PLJ 2000 Lahore 1086 and PLJ 2004 Lahore 677.
4. Closing of Defence: The appellate court can uphold the trial court’s order of closing the defence under Order VIII, Rule 10, CPC, especially if the defendants opt to challenge the order at the time of appeal against the final decree (2002 Lawvision 91).
5. Competency of Appeal: Appeals must be filed before the appropriate forum based on the pecuniary jurisdiction. Appeals filed in the wrong forum can be transferred or dismissed based on jurisdictional grounds. This was emphasized in PLJ 1999 Lah. 458 and PLD 2001 Lah. 139.
6. Compromise of Parties During Pendency of Appeal: The High Court may accept a compromise agreement between parties during the pendency of an appeal if it is lawful and adjusts the whole claim in the appeal, as seen in PLJ 2002 Lah. 1545.
7. Conflict of Judgment Between Trial Court and Appellate Court: The appellate court’s judgment typically prevails unless it is shown that the findings were unsupported by material evidence or patently illegal. This principle is outlined in PLJ 1999 Kar. 456.
8. Conversion of Revision into Appeal: In certain circumstances, revisions may be treated as appeals if the legal requirements are met, as seen in PLJ 1980 Lahore 128.
9. Court Fee: Appeals dismissed for non-payment of court fee without directing the appellant to make payment are typically set aside. The appellant should be given an opportunity to pay the required fee (1989 CLC 2080).
10. Entitlement of Plaintiff to Specific Performance: The appellate courts have consistently held that plaintiffs must demonstrate their readiness to perform their part of the contract to be entitled to specific performance, as established in PLJ 1999 Lah. 1410.
11. Fill-up Lacuna at Appeal Stage: Appellate or revisional authorities cannot fill up lacunae in favor of either party during the appeal stage (PLJ 1997 SC 2084).
12. First Appeal: The first appellate court has the prerogative to re-appraise the evidence and reverse the trial court’s findings. This is supported by PLJ 2004 Lahore 677.
13. Forum for Appeal: The appropriate forum for appeal is determined by the valuation of the suit as fixed by the plaintiffs, as emphasized in PLD 2001 Lah. 139.
14. Fraud/Collusion in Obtaining Decree: The Supreme Court has noted that in cases of fraud or collusion, the decree can be challenged even after it has been finalized (PLD 1982 SC 146).
15. Grant of Relief of Possession at Appellate Stage: The appellate court may grant relief of possession if it is necessary to do complete justice and prevent further litigation, as seen in 2003 Lawvision 134.
16. Setting Aside Judgment/Decree/Order: A person adversely affected by a decree has concurrent remedies under Section 12(2) CPC and the right to file an appeal. Both remedies are available to the aggrieved person (1984 SCMR 586).
17. Limitation: Filing an appeal in the wrong forum and the subsequent delay can be excused if there is sufficient cause. Deliberate actions contrary to law do not justify condonation of delay (PLJ 2001 SC 248).
18. Nonmentioning of Word ‘Decree’ in Memo of Appeal: The requirements of Order 41, Rule 1 CPC are deemed to be complied with if the intent of the appeal is clear, even if the word ‘decree’ is not mentioned (PLJ 2004 Peshawar 240).
19. Omission by the Court: A decree passed without properly summoning the parties, especially companies, can be set aside. The act of the court should not prejudice any party (2001 CLC 1065).
20. Partial Rejection of Plaint: Summary rejection of a plaint without a fair trial is typically set aside, allowing the case to be decided on its merits (1986 CLC 126).
21. Preliminary Decree: Appeals must be filed against preliminary decrees separately from final decrees. Preliminary decrees cannot be contested during an appeal against a final decree (2002 MLD 879).
22. Recovery of Damages: The entitlement to damages must be proven, and claims must be substantiated with evidence, as seen in PLJ 1997 Lah. 652.
23. Regular First Appeal: Appellants cannot re-agitate the same questions if they have been effectively dealt with in a prior appeal relating to the same subject matter (PLJ 2003 Lahore 1402).
24. Reserve Price: Auctions without a reserve price in the proclamation are liable to be set aside to ensure fairness in the sale process (PLJ 2000 Lah. 1598).
25. Compensation for Acquired Land: The appellate court may enhance compensation if it deems the original award to be insufficient, considering the fair market value of the land (PLJ 1999 Pesh. 33).
26. Review: Clerical mistakes and errors can be corrected through review, and such orders are typically not appealable (PLJ 1980 Supreme Court 35).
27. Right of Appeal: The right of appeal is vested in individuals explicitly or implicitly by statute, as held in PLJ 1984 SC (AJ&K) 54.
28. Scope of Appeal: Appeals must be decided on their merits, and the appellate court must apply its mind to the controversy involved (2000 Lawvision 2).
29. Stranger to Suit: Strangers to a suit who are adversely affected by a decree can file an appeal if they obtain leave from the appellate court (PLJ 1996 Pesh. 187).
30. Substantive Vested Right: The right of appeal available at the institution of the suit continues to be available throughout the case, regardless of subsequent changes in the law (1986 CLC 2057).
31. Talb-i-Muwitkabit: In pre-emption suits, the plaintiff must prove the timely and proper performance of Talb-i-Muwitkabit to maintain the suit (PLJ 2000 Lah. 854).
32. Time-Barred Appeal: Appeals filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation must demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, which is assessed on a case-by-case basis (PLJ 2000 Kar. 109).Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

    This legal note elucidates the provisions under Part VII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, concerning appeals from original decrees and related judicial interpretations.

    Part VII: Appeals

    Section 97: Appeal from Final Decree where no Appeal from Preliminary Decree

    Section 97 specifies that if a party aggrieved by a preliminary decree does not appeal from such a decree, they are precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal preferred from the final decree.

    1. Appeal from Preliminary Decree: Parties must appeal against a preliminary decree if they are aggrieved by it. Failure to do so precludes them from challenging its correctness in any subsequent appeal against the final decree.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Competency to Question Final Decree: Appellants who did not prefer an appeal against the preliminary decree can still question the validity of the final decree, even if they did not appeal against the preliminary decree, which is considered incomplete (PLJ 1999 Kar. 246 = 1998 CLC 2023).
    2. Challenging Preliminary Decree: A party aggrieved by a preliminary decree and dissatisfied with the order disposing of certain objections can challenge the decree in an appeal for an authoritative pronouncement. However, failing to do so precludes them from criticizing the preliminary decree in an appeal against the final decree. Corrections of a preliminary decree cannot be subjected to an appeal against the final decree (Jamal Din v. Muhammad Yaqoob 1983 CLC 286 and Friend Engineering Corporation v. Government of the Punjab 1991 SCMR 2324).
    3. Reopening Issues: Issues decided before the passing of the preliminary decree cannot be reagitated or reopened by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction on the same ground (PLD 2001 SC 79).

    Section 98: Decision where Appeal Heard by Two or More Judges

    Section 98 outlines the procedure when an appeal is heard by a bench of two or more judges.

    1. Majority Opinion (Subsection 1): The appeal shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the judges.
    2. No Majority (Subsection 2): If there is no majority concurring in varying or reversing the decree appealed from, the decree shall be confirmed. If the bench consists of two judges who differ on a point of law, they may state the point of law upon which they differ, and the appeal shall be heard upon that point by one or more other judges, decided by the majority.
    3. No Alteration of Letters Patent (Subsection 3): This section does not alter or affect any provision of the letters patent of any High Court.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Reference on Difference of Opinion: When there is a difference of opinion in a civil appeal, criminal reference, or criminal appeal, the provisions for such reference are contained in Section 98, CPC, read with Clause 26 of the Letters Patent (Lahore) and Sections 378 & 429 of Cr.P.C., respectively. The scope of reference in criminal matters is wider than in civil appeals (PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Karachi) 949).

    Section 99: No Decree to be Reversed or Modified for Error or Irregularity not Affecting Merits or Jurisdiction

    Section 99 states that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of any misjoinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect, or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage: If the appellate court admits additional evidence without proper grounds under Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC, and disregards Section 99, CPC, the case may be remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with the law (1993 MLD 30).
    2. Irregularity Not Affecting Merits: A plaintiff deliberately filing a suit for accounts without cause of action is an illegality affecting the merits of the case, not merely an irregularity (PLD 1972 Kar. 8). Omission of one of the judges of a division bench to sign a judgment does not vitiate the judgment if it does not affect the merits or jurisdiction of the court (PLJ 1997 SC 1202).
    3. Issues Settlement: Treating an issue of fact as a preliminary issue is a defect or irregularity that does not affect the merits or jurisdiction of the court (PLJ 1980 Lahore 713).
    4. Representative Capacity: Failure to obtain leave to sue in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8, CPC, is a mandatory requirement and cannot be condoned under Section 99. Such leave can be granted at the appellate stage if all formalities are observed (2003 Lawvision 59).
    5. Procedural Irregularity: Procedural irregularities, such as failure to make endorsements on documents, are covered by Section 99, CPC, and do not warrant reversing a decree or remanding a case if the irregularity does not affect the merits or jurisdiction (PLJ 1995 Lah. 114).

    Conclusion

    Sections 97 to 99 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provide a framework for handling appeals and addressing errors or irregularities in judicial proceedings. Judicial interpretations ensure these provisions are applied to uphold justice without causing undue prejudice to any party.

    Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

    This legal note elucidates the provisions under Part VII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, concerning appeals from appellate decrees and related judicial interpretations.

    Part VII: Appeals from Appellate Decrees

    Section 100: Second Appeal

    Section 100 delineates the grounds upon which a second appeal may be preferred to the High Court from decrees passed in appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court. The grounds for such an appeal are specified as follows:

    1. Grounds for Second Appeal (Subsection 1):
       • (a) The decision being contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law;
       • (b) The decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law;
       • (c) A substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, which may possibly have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits.

    Legal Amendments: * Subsection (2) was omitted by Section 11 of Ordinance X of 1980.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Allotment of Land: The contention that land already confirmed to an appellant cannot be allotted to another without setting aside the original allotment order. Such disputes are not challengeable in revision (1983 CLC 580).
    2. Appraising Evidence: Evidence lightly touched by lower courts can be critically examined at the appellate level. If possession or claim of ownership is time-barred or unsubstantiated, the suit can be dismissed as time-barred, and adverse possession may be established (PLJ 1981 AK (HC) 129).
    3. Concurrent Findings of Facts: The High Court can reverse findings if there is misreading or non-reading of evidence. However, concurrent findings by lower courts are generally upheld unless they are perverse or arbitrary (PLD 2001 SC 213).
    4. Condonation of Delay: Delay in filing an appeal can be condoned if it is due to a bona fide mistake regarding the forum of appeal (1986 CLC 126).
    5. Consent Decree under Family Settlement: Assailing a consent decree on the ground of fraud and forgery is not permissible if the matter of title was settled by the Supreme Court. Courts are bound by earlier decisions (PLJ 2004 Lahore 1350).
    6. Court-Fees: Deficiency in court-fees pointed out for the first time at the appellate stage should allow the appellant time to make good the deficiency (1987 MLD 2541).
    7. Defective Agreement to Sell: Agreements executed when the seller did not own the property but later acquired title can be effective. The agreement’s validity must be proven by evidence (PLJ 2000 Lah. 682).
    8. Factum of Gift: The burden of proving a gift is on the party asserting it. Lack of convincing evidence from the appellant leads to the dismissal of the claim (PLJ 2001 Lahore 1056).
    9. Grounds for High Court Interference: The High Court interferes only on substantial errors of law or procedure, not merely to reappraise evidence (PLJ 2000 Lah. 1531).
    10. Justification for Interference: High Court interference is justified when there is a substantial error in appraising evidence or an error of law (PLJ 1988 Lah. 5).
    11. Misreading and Non-Reading of Evidence: Errors in reading evidence or applying the law can lead to the reversal of lower court judgments (PLJ 2001 Lahore 481).
    12. Oral Sale through Mutation: Oral sales must be proven independently of the mutation document. Lack of independent evidence of the transaction invalidates the claim (PLJ 1999 Lah. 185).
    13. Principle of Res-Subjudice: The court is restrained from proceeding with a subsequent suit if the matter is directly and substantially the same as a previously instituted suit (PLJ 1981 Lahore 141).
    14. Rejection of Plaint: Orders remitting cases to trial courts for disposal are not appealable under certain circumstances (PLJ 1977 Kar. 454).
    15. Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam: High Courts cannot rule on the issue of “Riba” as it falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court (PLJ 2000 Lah. 1370).
    16. Right of Appeal: The right to appeal is a substantive right, vested at the time of instituting the suit. Amendments to appeal provisions do not affect this vested right (1986 CLC 2057).
    17. Scope: High Courts can only interfere in concurrent findings of fact on strong legal grounds, such as misreading of evidence or perverse conclusions (PLD 2003 SC 676).
    18. Second Appeal Treated as First Appeal: If a first appeal is filed before an incompetent forum, it can be treated as a second appeal before the High Court (1986 CLC 126).
    19. Second Appeal on Facts: High Court interference is limited to correcting substantial errors of law or procedure, not merely reappraising facts (PLJ 1981 Supreme Court 733).
    20. Entrusting Inquiry to Civil Judge: Matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the appellate court cannot be referred to the trial court for inquiry (PLJ 1997 Lah. 1241).
    21. Other View-Point on Evidence: High Courts do not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is misreading or procedural errors affecting the decision (PLJ 1997 SC 2034).

    Section 101: Second Appeal on No Other Grounds

    Section 101 specifies that no second appeal shall lie except on the grounds mentioned in Section 100. This provision reinforces the limited scope of second appeals, emphasizing the necessity for substantial errors of law or procedure for the High Court to entertain such appeals.

    Conclusion

    Sections 100 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provide a stringent framework for second appeals, ensuring that only substantial errors of law or procedure warrant the High Court’s intervention. Judicial interpretations uphold these provisions, maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the appellate process.

    Legal Note on Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

    This legal note elucidates the provisions under Part VII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, concerning second appeals and related judicial interpretations.

    Part VII: Appeals from Appellate Decrees

    Section 102: No Second Appeal in Certain Suits

    Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, outlines the circumstances under which a second appeal is not permissible. Specifically:

    1. Prohibition of Second Appeal:
       • No second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes.
       • No second appeal shall lie in any other suit where the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed the amount or value as determined by the Provincial Government by law.

    Legal Amendments: * Substituted by Act VIII of 2004.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Value of Subject Matter:
       • Second appeal is barred if the valuation by the appellant is below fifty thousand rupees (PLJ 1984 Qta. 1).
       • For suits exceeding Rs. 2003, second appeal is competent even if the suit was for a permanent injunction (PLJ 1980 Bahawalpur 117).
       • Suit value cannot be different for first and second appeals; the value given in the decree is considered for determining the competency of a second appeal (1983 CLC 580).
    2. Conversion of Revision into Second Appeal:
       • If a party had the right to a second appeal at the time of instituting the suit, this right remains intact despite subsequent amendments to Section 102, CPC. Revision filed under misapprehension can be converted into a second appeal by the High Court (1986 CLC 2057).

    Section 103: Power of High Court to Determine Issues of Fact

    Section 103 empowers the High Court to determine any issue of fact necessary for the disposal of a second appeal if the evidence on record is sufficient. This applies particularly when the lower appellate court has either not determined the issue or has wrongly determined it due to illegality, omission, error, or defect as referred to in Section 100(1).

    Section 104: Orders from which Appeal Lies

    1. Appealable Orders:
       • An appeal shall lie from specified orders, including:
         • (f) An order under Section 35A;
         • (ff) An order under Section 47;
         • (g) An order under Section 95;
         • (h) Orders imposing a fine or directing arrest or detention in civil prison, except in execution of a decree;
         • (i) Orders under rules expressly allowing an appeal.
    2. Proviso:
       • No appeal shall lie against any order specified in clause (f) except on the ground that no order, or an order for a lesser amount, ought to have been made.
    3. Non-Appealable Orders:
       • No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Interlocutory Orders:
       • Appellate courts should not substitute their discretion for that of the trial judge except where the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or contrary to legal principles (Khairati v. Aleemuddin PLD 1973 SC 295).
    2. Appeal by a Stranger:
       • Provisions of Sections 96 and 104 allow a person adversely affected by a decree or order to file an appeal even if they were not a party to the original suit (H. M. Saya & Co. v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd., Karachi PLD 1969 SC 65).
    3. Competency to File Appeal:
       • Mortgagees not vigilant in participating in appeals decided years prior to the institution of a revision are not prejudicially affected by judgments to which they were not a party (PLJ 1996 Pesh. 187).
    4. Interim Injunction:
       • If a defendant has already suspended supply of raw material before the suit, a trial court’s order directing the continuation of supply may be set aside if the plaintiff fails to show a prima facie case and irreparable loss (2002 CLD 77).
    5. Objection Petition:
       • A bona fide purchaser’s rights are not affected by a mortgage not genuinely created, even if the execution court cannot go behind the decree (PLJ 2002 Lahore 1289).

    Section 105: Other Orders

    1. Appeal Restrictions:
       • No appeal shall lie from any order made by a court in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction unless expressly provided.
       • Errors, defects, or irregularities in any order affecting the decision of the case may be grounds of objection in the memorandum of appeal if the decree is appealed from.
    2. Orders of Remand:
       • Parties aggrieved by an order of remand must appeal from it; otherwise, they are precluded from disputing its correctness thereafter.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Appointment of Arbitrator:
       • Appointment by interlocutory order is subject to appeal against the final order. Filing an appeal against the ultimate decision reopens the matter, including interim orders (Shah Jahan v. Inayat Shah AIR 1919 Lah. 38).

    Section 106: What Courts to Hear Appeals

    Appeals from any order lie to the court where an appeal would lie from the decree in the suit in which such order was made or, if the order is made by a court in appellate jurisdiction, to the High Court.

    Section 107: Powers of Appellate Court

    1. Appellate Court Powers:
       • To determine a case finally;
       • To remand a case;
       • To frame issues and refer them for trial;
       • To take additional evidence or require such evidence to be taken.
    2. Duties and Powers:
       • The appellate court shall have the same powers and perform the same duties as conferred and imposed on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Powers and Functions of Appellate Court:
       • The High Court can pass any judgment and decree which the lower court is competent to do (1993 MLD 2105).
    2. Scope:
       • The appellate court has the power to pass orders necessary to meet the ends of justice, but inherent powers cannot be exercised when specific provisions exist (PLD 1993 SC 418).

    Section 108: Procedure in Appeals from Appellate Decrees and Orders

    The provisions relating to appeals from original decrees apply to appeals from appellate decrees and orders made under the Code or any special or local law where no different procedure is provided.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Procedure for Second Appeal:
       • The procedure is derived from Order XLI CPC read with other provisions, including Sections 96 to 99, 107, and 108 CPC (PLD 1984 SC 289).
    2. Judgment in Appeal:
       • Omission of one judge to sign a judgment in a civil appeal does not vitiate it if it does not affect the merits or jurisdiction, provided the judge remains in service (PLJ 1997 SC 1202).

    Legal Note on Appeals to the Supreme Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

    Section 109: When Appeals Lie to the Supreme Court

    Section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, delineates the circumstances under which an appeal from a High Court’s judgment, decree, or final order lies to the Supreme Court. These conditions are:

    1. Monetary Value of Subject-Matter:
       • An appeal lies if the amount or value of the subject-matter in the Court of first instance was, and also in appeal is, fifty thousand rupees or upward, provided the judgment, decree, or final order appealed from has varied or set aside the judgment, decree, or final order of the Court immediately below.
    2. Property Disputes:
       • An appeal lies if the judgment, decree, or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value, and it has varied or set aside the judgment, decree, or final order of the Court immediately below.
    3. Substantial Question of Law:
       • An appeal lies if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

    Legal Amendments: * Substituted by P.O. 4 of 1975.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Value of Suit Property:
       • If the value of the subject-matter in dispute exceeds Rs. 50,000 in the Court of first instance and in appeal, a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is competent without the need for a petition for leave to appeal under Section 42(12) of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974. Sections 109 and 110 CPC and provisions of Order XLV CPC apply unless inconsistent with the Interim Constitution Act (PLJ 1999 SC (AJ&K) 295).

    Section 110: Value of Subject-Matter

    Section 110 was omitted by the Federal Adaptation of Laws Order, 1975 (P.O. 4 of 1975).

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Mode of Filing Appeal under Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
       • The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, being a complete code, provides for remedies against judgments passed on references under Section 18. Section 54 of the Act outlines that appeals against High Court judgments in these matters are to be governed by the procedure in Section 110 CPC. Despite the omission of Section 110 from CPC, it remains incorporated in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act until specifically amended (PLJ 1999 SC 1068).

    Section 111: Bar of Certain Appeals

    Section 111 specifies that no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court:

    1. Single Judge Orders:
       • From the decree or order of one Judge of a High Court or of a Division Court, or of two or more Judges of such High Court or Division Court, where the Judges are equally divided in opinion and do not constitute a majority of the Judges of the High Court at the time.
    2. Decrees Barred under Section 102:
       • From any decree where a second appeal is barred under Section 102.

    Section 111-A: Appeals to Federal Court

    This section was omitted by the Federal Court Act, 1941 (XXI of 1941), S. 2.

    Section 112: Savings

    This section ensures that nothing in the Code affects the powers of the Supreme Court under the Constitution or any other provision, nor interferes with the rules made by the Supreme Court for presenting appeals or their conduct.

    Section 113: Reference to High Court

    Section 113 allows any Court to state a case and refer it to the High Court for its opinion, subject to prescribed conditions and limitations.

    PART VIII: Reference, Review, and Revision

    Section 114: Review

    Section 114 empowers any person considering himself aggrieved by: (a) A decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but not preferred; (b) A decree or order from which no appeal is allowed; or (c) A decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, to apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

    Legal Amendments: * Substituted by P.O.4 of 1975.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    1. Review in Banking Companies Ordinance:
       • Section 11 of the Ordinance does not oust the provisions of Section 114 CPC for review, as an application for review is to be heard by the Special Court itself and not any other court (PLJ 1995 Kar. 331).
    2. Correction of Clerical Errors:
       • The High Court has the power to correct clerical errors or provide clarification to remove technical defects, and such orders are not appealable nor do they merit review (PLJ 1980 Supreme Court 35).
    3. Limitation and Review:
       • Appeals against judgments delivered in revision by the High Court are subject to limitation, and vague reasons are not sufficient to condone delay in filing revision petitions (PLJ 2000 SC 212).
    4. Scope of Review:
       • Courts have inherent power to review and set aside judgments delivered without jurisdiction or obtained by fraud. The main aim of review is to correct errors or prevent injustice, and this discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles (PLJ 1999 Pesh. 68).

    Legal Note on Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

    Section 115: Revision

    Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, grants the High Court the power to call for the record of any case decided by a subordinate court, in which no appeal lies, to ensure that the lower court has not exercised jurisdiction erroneously. The conditions under which the High Court may exercise this power are as follows:

    1. Exercise of Jurisdiction Not Vested by Law:
       • If the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law.
    2. Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction:
       • If the subordinate court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.
    3. Illegality or Material Irregularity:
       • If the subordinate court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

    Proviso: – When an application is made under this section, the applicant must furnish copies of pleadings, documents, and the order of the subordinate court. The High Court should dispose of such applications without calling for the record of the subordinate court, except for reasons to be recorded. – Such an application must be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate court, which must provide a copy of the decision within three days. The High Court should dispose of the application within six months.

    Subsection (2): – The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) concerning any case decided by a subordinate court in which no appeal lies, and where the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed the limits of the District Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

    Subsection (3): – If an application under subsection (1) is made to either the High Court or the District Court, no further application shall be made to either court.

    Subsection (4): – No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2) by the District Court.

    Legal Amendments: * Re-numbered by Ordinance No. 12 of 1972. * Added by Section 13 of Ordinance X of 1980. * Added by Act VI of 1992, and Act 14 of 1994. * Added by Ordinance XII of 1972, and Act 14 of 1994.

    Court Decisions:

    1. Absence of Petitioner:
       • Courts may either dismiss a revision for non-prosecution or decide it on merits. In the case where the court decides the revision on merits, the petitioner cannot argue for its restoration on the ground that it should be presumed dismissed in default (PLJ 2001 Peshawar 62).
    2. Additional Evidence:
       • The appellate court’s discretion to admit additional evidence must be exercised in accordance with Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC. Failure to adhere to these provisions can result in the remanding of the case for a fresh decision (1993 MLD 30).
       • The appellate court correctly refused to allow additional evidence when it was clear that such evidence would not affect the outcome of the case (PLJ 2000 Lahore 2261).
    3. Ad-interim Injunction:
       • Concurrent findings of fact supporting the issuance of an ad-interim injunction are generally not disturbed in revision, especially when based on correct appreciation of evidence (PLJ 2002 Lahore 1521).
    4. Adjustment in Consolidation Proceedings:
       • The appellate court’s decision to remand a case for reconsideration of title questions was upheld, emphasizing the necessity of addressing such issues through proper legal channels (PLJ 2004 Lahore 1540).
    5. Administration Suit:
       • The concurrent findings of fact regarding the determination of shares in an administration suit were maintained, demonstrating the finality of such judgments when properly substantiated (PLJ 2002 Lahore 1491).
    6. Agreement through Mistake:
       • A testator’s act of alienating property after executing a will constitutes a revocation of that will. Courts correctly applied this principle to dismiss claims based on the revoked will (PLJ 2001 Lahore 647).
    7. Allottee of Government Land:
       • The appellate court’s decree favoring plaintiffs based on agreements to sell was overturned in revision, as such agreements did not confer any rights under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (PLJ 2002 Lahore 1052).
    8. Amendment in Pleadings:
       • Courts should allow amendments that do not change the substance and nature of the suit, especially when necessary to determine the real matters in controversy (PLJ 2003 Lahore 834).
    9. Amendment of Warabandi:
       • The trial court’s order regarding canal water distribution was correctly declared illegal due to the lack of a dispute between the parties (PLJ 1998 Lahore 787).
    10. Application U/S. 34 of Arbitration Act:
        • Courts should favor referring disputes to arbitration when an all-encompassing arbitration clause exists, to minimize prolonged litigation (PLJ 1999 Peshawar 50).
    11. Application Within Time from Date of Knowledge:
        • Review applications filed within time from the date of knowledge of a court order are considered timely, even if service was not properly effected (PLJ 2003 Lahore 1709).
    12. Appointment of Arbitrator:
        • The powers under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, apply to cases where arbitrators are appointed by mutual consent, not where each party appoints its own arbitrator (PLJ 2001 Lahore 1181).
    13. Appreciation of Evidence:
        • The High Court generally does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence or the findings are arbitrary (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 20).

          Legal Note on Special Provisions Relating to High Courts under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

          Part IX: Special Provisions Relating to High Courts

          Section 116: Part to Apply Only to Certain High Courts

          This part of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) applies exclusively to certain High Courts. It delineates the special provisions tailored for the functioning and jurisdiction of High Courts.

          Section 117: Application of Code to High Courts

          The provisions of the CPC apply to High Courts, save for what is expressly provided in this Part, Part X, or any specific rules. This ensures that the general procedural framework of the CPC governs High Courts unless specific provisions or rules dictate otherwise.

          Section 118: Execution of Decree Before Ascertainment of Costs

          A High Court may execute a decree passed in its original civil jurisdiction before the costs of the suit are ascertained by taxation. The decree can be executed immediately, except for the portion relating to costs, which can be executed once the costs are determined.

          Section 119: Unauthorized Persons Not to Address Court

          This provision ensures that only authorized persons can address the court, examine witnesses, or conduct similar activities in the exercise of the High Court’s original civil jurisdiction. Authorization must come from the court’s charter or rules concerning advocates, vakils, and attorneys.

          Section 120: Provisions Not Applicable to High Court in Original Civil Jurisdiction

          Sections 16, 17, and 20 of the CPC do not apply to the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction. This provides High Courts with a tailored procedural approach distinct from other courts.

          Part X: Rules

          Section 121: Effect of Rules in First Schedule

          The rules in the First Schedule of the CPC have the same effect as if they were enacted in the body of the Code, until annulled or altered according to the provisions of this part.

          Section 122: Power of Certain High Courts to Make Rules

          High Courts have the power to make rules regulating their procedure and that of subordinate courts. These rules, once made and published, have the force of law.

          Section 123: Constitution of Rule Committees in Certain Provinces

          A Rule Committee is constituted at the usual place of sitting of each High Court. The Committee consists of three High Court judges (one of whom must have served as a District or Divisional Judge for three years), two practicing advocates, and a subordinate Civil Court judge. Members are appointed by the Chief Justice, who also nominates one member as President.

          Section 124: Committee to Report to High Court

          Rule Committees must report to the High Court on proposals to annul, alter, or add to the rules in the First Schedule or to make new rules. The High Court must consider these reports before making any new rules.

          Section 126: Rules to be Subject to Approval

          Rules made under the aforementioned sections require the previous approval of the Provincial Government or the Federal Government, as applicable.

          Section 127: Publication of Rules

          Approved rules must be published in the official Gazette and have the force of law from the date of publication or any specified date within the local jurisdiction of the High Court that made them.

          Section 128: Matters for Which Rules May Provide

          Rules must be consistent with the provisions of the CPC but can regulate various procedural aspects, including service of summonses, custody of property, procedure in suits by way of counter-claim, garnishee and charging orders, summary procedures, and more.

          Section 129: Power of High Court to Make Rules as to Their Original Civil Procedure

          High Courts may make rules, not inconsistent with their Letters Patent, to regulate their procedure in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction.

          Section 131: Publication of Rules

          Rules made under section 129 must be published in the official Gazette and will have the force of law from the date of publication or any specified date.

          Part XI: Miscellaneous

          Section 132: Exemption of Certain Women from Personal Appearance

          Women who, according to local customs and manners, should not appear in public are exempt from personal appearance in court. This does not exempt them from arrest in civil processes where such arrest is not prohibited.

          Section 133: Exemption of Other Persons

          The Provincial Government may exempt certain persons from personal appearance in court based on their rank. These exemptions must be notified in the official Gazette, and lists of exempt persons must be maintained by the High Court and subordinate courts.

          Section 134: Arrest Other Than in Execution of Decree

          Sections 55, 57, and 59 of the CPC apply to all persons arrested under the Code, not just those arrested in execution of a decree.

          Section 135: Exemption from Arrest Under Civil Process

          Judicial officers and parties involved in proceedings before a tribunal are exempt from arrest under civil process while attending or returning from such proceedings. This exemption does not apply to judgment-debtors in specific circumstances.

          Section 135-A: Exemption of Members of Legislative Bodies from Arrest and Detention Under Civil Process

          Members of legislative bodies are exempt from arrest or detention under civil process during legislative sessions and for fourteen days before and after such sessions.

          Section 136: Procedure Where Person to be Arrested or Property to be Attached is Outside District

          When an application is made to arrest a person or attach property outside the local jurisdiction of the court, the court may issue a warrant or order of attachment and send it to the relevant District Court for execution.

          Section 137: Language of Subordinate Courts

          The language of subordinate courts at the commencement of the CPC continues until the Provincial Government directs otherwise. The Provincial Government can declare the language for court proceedings and documents.

          Section 138: Power of High Court to Require Evidence to be Recorded in English

          High Courts can direct that evidence in certain cases be recorded in English. If a judge cannot comply with this direction, the reason must be recorded, and the evidence taken down in writing from the judge’s dictation in open court.

          Section 139: Oath on Affidavit by Whom to be Administered

          Affidavits under the CPC may be administered by any court, magistrate, appointed officer, or other empowered person.

          Section 140: Assessors in Causes of Salvage, Etc.

          In admiralty or vice-admiralty causes of salvage, towage, or collision, the court may summon two competent assessors to assist. These assessors receive fees for their attendance, as directed by the court.

          Section 141: Miscellaneous Proceedings

          The procedural rules for suits apply to all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction, ensuring consistency and fairness in civil processes.

          Court Decision:

          Contention that the provisions of CPC are not applicable on the principle that special law excludes general law was rejected. The provisions of general law are applicable where the special law is silent, as in the case of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits, and Finances) Act, 1997, which does not conflict with the CPC. Courts must administer justice without letting technicalities obstruct the decree holders from obtaining the fruits of their decrees (PLJ 2001 Lahore 919).

          Section 142: Orders and Notices to be in Writing

          All orders and notices served or given under the provisions of the CPC must be in writing.

          Section 143: Postage

          Postage and registration fees for notices, summonses, or letters issued under the CPC must be paid within a time fixed before communication is made. The Provincial Government may remit such postage or fees or prescribe a scale of court fees in lieu thereof.

          Section 144: Application for Restitution

          When a decree is varied or reversed, the court of first instance must, on application, ensure restitution to place the parties in their original position before the decree. This includes orders for refund of costs, payment of interest, damages, compensation, and mesne profits. No separate suit is required for obtaining restitution.

          Court Decisions:

          • The doctrine of restitution does not confer any new substantive rights but specifies one method of enforcing existing rights (2001 MLD 1044).
          • Restitution must be sought in respect of a decree that has been varied or reversed, and the applicant must be entitled to benefit under the reversing decree (PLJ 1999 Lahore 934).

          Section 145: Enforcement of Liability of Surety

          The surety’s liability for the performance of any decree, restitution of property, payment of money, or fulfilment of any court order can be enforced as if it were a decree. The surety is deemed a party for the purposes of appeal within the meaning of Section 47.

          Court Decision:

          Sureties are liable for compliance with orders issued in subsequent proceedings, even if the bond was furnished for earlier appellate proceedings (PLJ 1979 Karachi 242).

          Section 146: Proceedings by or Against Representatives

          Proceedings or applications that can be taken by or against a person can also be taken by or against anyone claiming under them.

          Court Decision:

          The doctrine of lis pendens does not preclude transferees from being made parties to ongoing proceedings. This applies equally to appeals, ensuring continuity in legal proceedings (PLJ 1997 SC 202).

          Section 147: Consent or Agreement by Persons Under Disability

          In suits involving persons under disability, any consent or agreement made with the court’s express leave by their next friend or guardian has the same effect as if the person were not under disability.

          Court Decision:

          Agreements made by a next friend or guardian with the court’s leave hold the same sanctity as those made by persons without disabilities (PLJ 1999 Lahore 969).

          Legal Note on Enlargement of Time under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

          Section 148: Enlargement of Time

          Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) 1908 provides the Court with the discretionary power to enlarge any period fixed or granted for doing an act prescribed or allowed by the Code. This section enables the Court to extend the period from time to time, even after the originally fixed period has expired. This flexibility ensures that justice is administered fairly, allowing parties additional time under certain circumstances.

          Court Decisions

          1. Court Became Functus Officio:
          2. In the case of the High Court disposing of an appeal with an observation that if the deposit is not made within a fortnight, the appeal shall stand dismissed, the Court becomes functus officio. This means that the Court cannot extend the time, as its jurisdiction ceases after the final order is passed. Moreover, the Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to extend the time unless it falls within the three clauses of Section 115 (PLJ 1981 Lahore 95).
          3. Extension of Time after Decree:
          4. In pre-emption cases, once a decree is passed and the time for deposit of the pre-emptive price has expired, the Court has no power to extend the time under Section 148. This is because the Court becomes functus officio and ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter. The words “from time to time” in Section 148 indicate that the extension can only be applied during the trial phase and not after the final judgment or decree is pronounced (PLJ 2001 Peshawar 76).
          5. Powers Defined by Section 148:
          6. The powers conferred by Section 148 allow the Court to extend reasonable time for actions such as getting an affidavit attested. In a case where a District Judge failed to grant time for attestation, the defendant was burdened with a decree due to an un-attested affidavit. This was considered an undue hastening of justice, denying substantial rights to the party (PLJ 1996 Pesh. 44).
          7. Order of Court to Make Good Deficiency:
          8. The term “contumacy” used in the context of supplying a deficiency in court fees refers to obstinate and stubborn behavior in defying legal requirements. If a plaintiff is allowed time to supply the deficiency and fails without justification, it amounts to contumacy (PLD 1984 SC 289).
          9. Scope of Discretion:
          10. The exercise of discretion in extending time for payment of court fees should not be arbitrary or capricious. The Court’s discretion is meant to be applied judiciously, taking into account the circumstances of each case. The provision is not intended to be used to delay justice but to ensure fair opportunities for compliance (PLD 1985 Lah. 448).
          11. Summary Suit for Recovery of Loan:
          12. In summary suits for recovery of loans, the failure to file an affidavit can be remedied by the Court’s discretion under Section 148. The Court should be liberal in allowing defendants to file belated affidavits, provided there is no intention to delay or defeat proceedings (PLJ 1994 Kar. 222).
          13. Deposit of Pre-emption Amount:
          14. The North West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act 1987, being a special law, prevails over the general provisions of the CPC. Section 148 does not apply to extending time for depositing the pre-emption amount fixed by the Court. The special procedure under the Pre-emption Act must be followed strictly, and failure to deposit within the stipulated time results in dismissal of the suit (PLJ 2003 Peshawar 120).

          Section 149: Power to Make Up Deficiency of Court-fees

          Section 149 of the CPC empowers the Court to allow the payment of deficient court-fees at any stage. This provision ensures that documents are treated as valid from the date of original presentation once the deficiency is made up, thereby preventing dismissal of cases on technical grounds.

          Court Decisions

          1. Change of Law: Changes in court-fee laws are procedural, and no vested right exists in any particular procedure. The discretion under Section 149 should be exercised to allow correction of deficiencies unless there is contumacy or mala fide intent by the plaintiff (PLD 1984 SC 289).
          2. Court’s Discretion: The Court’s discretion under Section 149 is wide and applies to both whole and part payment of court-fees. It should be exercised to advance justice and not arbitrarily. Even in cases of appeals, the principles of allowing time for deficiency correction apply (PLJ 1999 SC (AJK) 315).
          3. Defendant’s Right: Orders passed at the back of a defendant are not binding, and the defendant can raise issues of deficiency in court-fee at any stage (PLJ 1984 Lah. 185).
          4. Appeal: In appeals, if the court-fee on the memorandum of appeal is deficient, the Court must first call upon the appellant to make up the deficiency before rejecting the appeal. The discretion under Section 149 should be exercised judiciously (1984 SCMR 579).
          5. Deficiency in Court-fee: Making up the deficiency in court-fee validates the document from the date of original presentation. This ensures that technicalities do not obstruct the administration of justice (PLD 1985 Lah. 448).
          6. Enlargement of Time: The Court should balance the discretion to extend time for court-fee payment with the rights of the defendant. Discretion should not be exercised routinely but with careful consideration of the case’s circumstances (PLD 1981 Lah. 293).
          7. Limitation Factor: The bar of limitation is not affected by deficiencies in court-fee. The Court has the power to accept court-fee at any stage, ensuring that limitation issues do not impede justice (PLJ 1999 SC (AJK) 315).

          Section 150: Transfer of Business

          When the business of a Court is transferred to another Court, the receiving Court inherits the same powers and duties conferred by the CPC on the original Court. This ensures continuity and consistency in judicial processes.

          Conclusion

          Sections 148 and 149 of the CPC provide the Courts with the necessary discretion to extend time and allow for the correction of court-fee deficiencies. These provisions are designed to prevent the dismissal of cases on technical grounds and ensure that justice is administered fairly and equitably. The Courts must exercise these powers judiciously, considering the circumstances of each case and ensuring that the rights of all parties are protected.

          Legal Note on Inherent Powers of Court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

          Section 151: Saving of Inherent Powers of Court

          Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, preserves the inherent powers of the Court to make any order necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the Court’s process. This provision ensures that the Courts retain the flexibility to address situations that are not explicitly covered by other provisions of the Code, allowing them to act in the interest of justice.

          Court Decisions

          1. Administration of Justice:The CPC is not exhaustive and does not cover every conceivable issue. The Courts possess inherent powers to do complete justice between parties according to the situation that arises during the administration of justice. This principle was affirmed in the case where the Court held that in the absence of express provisions, inherent powers are broad and serve the ends of justice (PLJ 1981 Lahore 141).
          2. Application for Leading of Additional Evidence:When important evidence with a material bearing on the merits of the case is discovered after judgment, parties can apply for its admission. However, the evidence must not be inconsistent with the pleadings. In a case where the defendant admitted a fact in the pleadings but later sought to lead contrary evidence, the Court disallowed it, emphasizing that inherent powers should not be used to allow evidence at variance with the pleadings (PLJ 1997 Kar. 41).
          3. Application for Restoration: Courts have used their inherent powers to restore suits dismissed in default when there was no valid order of dismissal or when the plaintiff had no notice of the hearing. The principle that disputes should be adjudicated on merits rather than technicalities guided the restoration of suits where procedural irregularities were present (PLJ 1997 Karachi 821).
          4. Essentials of Exercising Inherent Powers: Inherent powers under Section 151 can only be invoked when there is no other provision in the Code to address the issue. These powers must be exercised in aid of the jurisdiction specified in the CPC and cannot be used independently (PLJ 2000 Kar. 180).
          5. Breach of Contract: In cases of patent breaches causing immediate and irreparable injury, the Court may use its inherent powers to grant status quo ante. However, in breaches of unenforceable contracts, the Court should not exercise its discretion to restore a prior situation that ceased to exist when the litigation commenced (2002 Lawvision 137).
          6. Consolidation of Suits: Suits can be consolidated under inherent powers if parties are the same and issues overlap. However, if evidence in one suit is already complete, consolidation may be denied to avoid prejudice to the progress made in the other suit (PLJ 2002 Karachi 97).
          7. Expungement of Remarks:Adverse remarks made without providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned party can be expunged using inherent powers. This ensures that no person is condemned unheard, upholding principles of natural justice (PLJ 2004 Lahore 975).
          8. Extension of Time: Sufficient cause for extension of time, such as circumstances beyond a party’s control, can be granted under Section 151. However, in pre-emption cases, the failure to deposit the pre-emption price within the specified time results in dismissal, and inherent powers cannot be invoked to extend this period (PLJ 2001 Lahore 577).
          9. Grievance Relating to Mark-up: If an arbitrator’s award is in accordance with the terms agreed by the parties, objections based on dissatisfaction with the awarded mark-up are not entertained. The Court upheld the award, reinforcing that inherent powers cannot override express contractual terms (PLJ 2004 Lahore 1680).
          10. Inherent Powers for Restitution of Possession:Restitution under Section 151 can be invoked where Section 144 is not applicable. This ensures that the Courts have the flexibility to make restitution when justice demands it, even if the specific procedural provision does not apply (PLJ 1981 Karachi 153).
          11. Interim Relief: The Court’s inherent powers allow the grant of interim relief to prevent injustice. For example, in cases involving trust property, the Court may suspend development contracts to preserve the property’s status quo, even if the case does not strictly meet the criteria for injunctions under other provisions (2003 Lawvision 69).
          12. Marking of Exhibits: Documents not properly exhibited during trial cannot be deemed admitted merely because they are mentioned in affidavits. The Court emphasized that inherent powers do not absolve the responsibility of diligent evidence production and proper exhibition procedures (PLD 2003 Kar. 148).
          13. Objection to Award:In arbitration, objections based on dissatisfaction with the arbitrator’s adherence to contract terms were dismissed, reaffirming that inherent powers cannot contradict express contractual obligations (PLJ 2004 Lahore 1680).
          14. Police Aid or Authorization to Break Open Doors/Locks:Inherent powers ensure the execution of decrees, including authorizing police aid or breaking open doors to enforce the Court’s mandates. This upholds the authority and efficacy of judicial orders (PLJ 1980 Karachi 394).
          15. Powers of Appellate Court:The Appellate Court, under Sections 107(2) and 151, can pass necessary orders to meet the ends of justice. However, these powers cannot be used to award costs for frivolous appeals if the CPC specifically debars such action (2002 Lawvision 53).
          16. Scope of Inherent Powers:Inherent powers should not affect substantive rights or condone gross negligence. They must be exercised judiciously to ensure justice without overriding other specific provisions of the law (PLD 2003 Kar. 148).
          17. Temporary Injunction: Inherent powers can address contraventions of injunction orders. Courts can enforce compliance with their orders and penalize violations even if the main suit or appeal is subsequently dismissed (PLJ 1980 Supreme Court 252).
          18. Treating Application under Section 151 as Constitutional Petition: Applications under Section 151 cannot be treated as constitutional petitions unless there are no specific procedural remedies available. In cases where specific provisions exist, such inherent powers are not invoked (PLJ 2000 Karachi 180).
          19. Words “May Be Necessary for the Ends of Justice”:This phrase grants Courts the authority to intervene in subordinate Court orders and make necessary orders to secure justice. It reinforces the principle that inherent powers are broad and flexible to address unforeseen situations (PLJ 1981 AJK (SC) 36).

          Conclusion

          Section 151 of the CPC safeguards the inherent powers of the Courts to ensure justice is served and prevent the abuse of the judicial process. The Courts exercise these powers judiciously, balancing the need for flexibility with the principles of law and equity. The case law demonstrates the wide-ranging application of inherent powers, from granting interim relief to expunging adverse remarks, highlighting their crucial role in the administration of justice.