| Case ID |
2327e295-6109-46c1-9c7b-6262a85a2300 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 750 of 2016 and C.M.A. No. 13637 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 23, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 20, 2017 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court, presided over by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Farukh Mazhar, appointed Ms. Rukhsana Ahmed as the commissioner to record evidence for both parties in the case 'Suit No. 750 of 2016 and C.M.A. No. 13637 of 2017'. The court directed the parties to file their affidavits along with any supporting documents. The commissioner is tasked with concluding the evidence recording within three months, ensuring no undue or unnecessary adjournments are granted. In cases of default, the commissioner may close the respective side of the defaulting party. The fee for the commissioner’s services is set at Rs.15,000 per witness, which will be paid by the parties and adjusted in the final cost determination of the suit. The court emphasized the importance of facilitating justice expediently and preventing the defeat of substantial justice through technicalities. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case titled 'Suit No. 750 of 2016 and C.M.A. No. 13637 of 2017', adjudicated by the Sindh High Court on February 23, 2018, the court tackled a significant issue regarding the appointment of a commissioner to record evidence in a wrongful dismissal suit. The petitioner, represented by esteemed lawyers Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam, Imran Taj, and Shahzad Mehmood, sought the appointment of a commissioner to ensure a fair and efficient recording of evidence, thereby mitigating any potential delays or prejudices that might arise from traditional court proceedings. Defended by Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh and Jawaid Raza, the respondents opposed the appointment, arguing that it infringed upon their fundamental right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, along with Justice Syed Farukh Mazhar, presided over the case, meticulously examining the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). The court underscored the importance of procedural laws in facilitating justice and preventing the obstruction of legal processes through technicalities. It cited numerous precedents, including *Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey* and *Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali*, to reinforce the principle that procedural mechanisms should serve the cause of justice rather than hinder it.
The court's decision to appoint Ms. Rukhsana Ahmed as the commissioner was a strategic move aimed at expediting the evidence recording process. This appointment was in line with the provisions of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, which empowers courts to make necessary orders for the ends of justice. The commissioner was given clear directives to conclude the evidence recording within three months, with strict guidelines to prevent unnecessary adjournments. Moreover, the financial burden of the commissioner's fees was deemed equitable, with costs adjusted in the final determination of the suit.
This case highlights the Sindh High Court's commitment to modernizing judicial procedures and ensuring that the administration of justice remains swift and effective. By leveraging the authority granted under the Civil Procedure Code, the court demonstrated its proactive approach in addressing potential bottlenecks in legal proceedings. The involvement of seasoned legal professionals on both sides ensured a robust debate on the balance between procedural adherence and the overarching need for timely and fair justice.
Furthermore, the court's acknowledgment of the evolving societal dynamics and the necessity for laws to adapt to contemporary needs was evident throughout the proceedings. The references to various other judgments, including *Iqbal M. Hamzah v. Gillette Pakistan Ltd.* and *Mrs. Badar Rahim v. Hammad Asif Dosslani and another*, provided a comprehensive legal backdrop that informed the court's decision-making process.
In essence, this case serves as a testament to the Sindh High Court's dedication to upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and expediency. The appointment of a commissioner not only streamlined the evidence recording process but also reinforced the judiciary's role in mitigating delays and ensuring that litigants receive their due rights without unnecessary hindrances. As legal landscapes continue to evolve, such decisions pave the way for more efficient and accessible legal remedies, ultimately benefiting the broader public and reinforcing the rule of law. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
SGS Headquarters and Others
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE,
SYED FARUKH MAZHAR
|
| Lawyers |
Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam,
Imran Taj,
Shahzad Mehmood,
Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh,
Jawaid Raza
|
| Petitioners |
SGS Headquarters and Others
|
| Respondents |
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 1322,
2018 PLD 327
|
| Other Citations |
Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey and others (1883) ILR 5All 163,
Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali and others PLD 1963 SC 382,
Iqbal M. Hamzah v. Gillette Pakistan Ltd. 2011 YLR 277,
Mrs. Badar Rahim v. Hammad Asif Dosslani and another 2009 CLC 459,
Ishtiaq Ahmed's case 2016 SMCR 943,
New Jubilee Insurance Company v. National Bank of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 1126,
Suo Motu Case No. l4 of 2010 PLD 2012 SC 553,
Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416,
Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324,
Liaquat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 405,
National Bank of Pakistan v. Younus Habib and another HCA No. 230 of 2014,
Messrs United Bank Limited v. Messrs Plastic Pack (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2012 CLC 229,
Falah-ul-Momineen Trust v. V.P. Abdullah PLD 1970 Kar. 179
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
S.151,
O.X, R.1-A & O.XXVI, R.4
|