Did you know that it is your legal right to have your case decided in a timely and expeditious manner? The law is unequivocal on this matter, as discussed below. The National Judicial Policy (2009) also underscores the importance of prompt case resolution. If you are experiencing unreasonable delays in having your case heard at a judicial tribunal, our team at Josh and Mak International is here to assist you. To understand your chances of success in a legal matter, request a free consultation at aemen@joshandmak.com.
The principle of expeditious disposal of cases is embedded within the legal framework and supported by various judicial precedents. However, it is crucial to balance this principle with the necessity of delivering justice. As established in the case law, while superior courts may issue directions for the timely resolution of cases, such directives are advisory rather than mandatory. Specifically, in PLJ 1996 Lahore 1115, it is clarified that directives for case disposal within a specified period are intended to guide and should be adhered to as much as possible, provided they do not compromise the demands of justice. Where a court finds it challenging to decide a case within the prescribed timeframe due to legal and factual complexities, it is permissible to request an extension of time.
Moreover, the judicial system prioritises the right to a fair hearing above all. As affirmed in PLJ 1996 Lahore 1115, the reasonable opportunity for a hearing is a cornerstone of our judicial system. Any other consideration, no matter how well-intentioned, must yield to this fundamental principle. Each affected party must be afforded a fair chance to present their case, ensuring that justice is not sacrificed for the sake of expedience.
The issuance of special directions for the expeditious disposal of cases by superior courts is aimed at ensuring timely justice while adhering to legal principles. According to PLJ 1996 Lahore 1115, the management of hearings and trials should be conducted in a manner that guarantees all parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This balance ensures that the judicial process remains fair and just, even as it strives for efficiency.
The principle of expeditious disposal of cases is deeply embedded within the judicial framework of Pakistan, reflecting a judicial ethos that seeks to ensure swift justice while balancing the imperative of fairness and thoroughness. The courts’ attitude towards this principle can be discerned from various case laws, which underscore both the necessity of prompt case resolution and the concomitant obligation to uphold justice.
In Arshad Mehmood v. Special Judge-I, Anti-Terrorism Court, Islamabad (2023 PCrLJ 203), the Islamabad High Court highlighted that the certainty of punishment, rather than its severity, is a key deterrent to crime. The court emphasised that the expeditious disposal of cases by ordinary courts fosters public faith in the rule of law, thereby underscoring the social impact of timely justice.
The Shehryar Waqas Malik v. Muhammad Zafar Ali Khan (2018 CLD 1040) decision by the Karachi High Court reiterated the legislative intent behind Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The provision aims to prevent delays by restricting appeals against interlocutory orders, thus ensuring the swift resolution of banking disputes. This approach was affirmed to prevent inordinate delays caused by frivolous applications.
In Bank Alfalah Limited v. Interglobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2017 CLD 1428), the Karachi High Court further elaborated on Section 22, noting that allowing challenges to interlocutory orders would frustrate the very purpose of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The court reinforced that appeals should only be entertained against final orders to avoid unnecessary delays.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sheikh Saleem v. Mrs. Shamim Attaullah Khan (2014 SCMR 1694) extended the principle of expeditious disposal to rent cases. While the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) might not apply strictly to rent proceedings, its equitable principles are employed to ensure timely justice. Section 24-A of the CPC, aimed at expeditious case disposal, obliges parties to keep track of their cases and proceedings.
In Iftikhar Hussain v. State (2011 PLD 110), the Lahore High Court emphasised that while directives for timely case resolution are advisory, they should not compromise justice. The court highlighted that these directives should be followed as far as possible without sacrificing the right to a fair hearing.
The case of Ghulam Qadir v. Sharimati Sadori Baie (2011 YLR 2560) further illustrated the courts’ intolerance for tactics aimed at prolonging litigation. The Karachi High Court stressed that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was enacted for the quick and expeditious disposal of landlord-tenant disputes, and abusive litigation practices should be discouraged.
The Niaz A. Baloch v. Chairman, NAB (2008 MLD 1451) decision underscored the special legislative provisions for expeditious case disposal within the context of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) proceedings. The Karachi High Court affirmed that delegated powers to ensure smooth and timely proceedings are essential for the effective functioning of the NAB.
Similarly, in Muhammad Younus Arain v. Chairman, NAB (2008 MLD 1431), the court reiterated that the Chairman NAB’s delegated powers aim to ensure the swift resolution of cases, highlighting the procedural mechanisms in place for expeditious case disposal.
The Peshawar High Court in Qamar Javed v. Gul Jahan (2005 MLD 1329) highlighted the importance of adhering to summary procedures for the quick resolution of suits based on negotiable instruments. The court emphasised that procedural rigor must not impede the objective of swift justice.
In Falcon Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab Banking Court No.II, Lahore (2004 CLD 726), the Lahore High Court reaffirmed the legislative intent behind the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, to expedite banking case resolutions. The court noted that procedural provisions must be interpreted to facilitate quick justice.
The Shakila Riaz v. Judge Banking Court (2003 CLD 349) case underscored that Banking Courts are established for the expeditious recovery of bank dues. The Lahore High Court emphasised that the courts should not be handicapped by procedural technicalities that obstruct swift justice.
In Malik Muhammad Ayaz v. Messrs United Bank Limited (2002 CLD 423), the Peshawar High Court stressed that judicial forums must ensure expeditious case disposal while providing ample opportunity for all sides to present their cases, thereby balancing speed with fairness.
The Shamas-ud-Din v. Muhammad Sharif (1996 PLD 210) decision by the Lahore High Court illustrated the delicate balance between following superior court directives for timely case resolution and ensuring that justice is not compromised. The court stressed that fair hearing opportunities must not be sacrificed at the altar of expediency.
In Shams-ud-Din v. Muhammad Sharif (1996 MLD 1094), the Lahore High Court reiterated the need for reasonable hearing opportunities while complying with directives for expeditious case disposal, reinforcing the principle that justice must prevail even in the pursuit of swift resolutions.
The Mir Alam Khan v. Mosim Khan (1991 MLD 2282) decision highlighted the administrative obligations of the judiciary to ensure timely justice, reflecting the importance of procedural compliance for the expeditious disposal of cases.
Lastly, the Muhammad Aslam v. State (1990 PCrLJ 205) case underscored that the objective of expeditious case disposal should not undermine the right to a fair defence, ensuring that justice remains the paramount concern.
In conclusion, these cases collectively reflect the courts’ steadfast commitment to expeditious case disposal as a means to enhance judicial efficiency and public trust. However, this commitment is carefully balanced with the fundamental principles of fairness and the right to a comprehensive hearing, ensuring that the pursuit of swift justice does not compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
In conclusion, the law mandates the timely resolution of cases, reinforcing the right to swift justice. However, this mandate must always be balanced with the overarching need for fairness and due process. If you are facing undue delays in your legal proceedings, do not hesitate to reach out to us for professional assistance. Our team is committed to helping you navigate the complexities of the legal system and ensuring that your right to timely justice is upheld. For a free consultation, contact us at aemen@joshandmak.com.
