ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court said closure of litigation is essential for a fair and efficient legal system, and the courts should not unwarrantedly make room for litigants to abuse the process of law.
“Once a matter has been adjudicated upon on fact by the trial and the appellate courts, constitutional courts should not exceed their powers by re-evaluating the facts or substituting the appellate court’s opinion with their own,” the judgment authored by Justice Ayesha A Malik said.
“The acceptance of the finality of the appellate court’s findings is essential for achieving closure in legal proceedings conclusively resolving disputes, preventing unnecessary litigation, and upholding the legislature’s intent to provide a definitive resolution through existing appeal mechanisms,” added a two-member judgment.
SC should be informed before military trials of civilians begin: chief justice
Isma Bukhari (Respondent No 1) was married to Hamad Hasan (petitioner) on 07.02.2014 and out of this wedlock, a male child, Muhammad Umar Hamad (Bilal) was born. On 14.03.2015, Respondent No 1, along with her minor son filed a suit for recovery of dower, maintenance allowance, and dowry articles, etc., before Judge Family Court, Kohat.
The Judge Family Court, Kohat, on 24.11.2018 decreed the Suit holding that Respondent No 1 was entitled to recovery of Rs300,000 as dower and half of the share in the house along with five marla land, as specified in the Nikkahnama and was also entitled to receive maintenance with effect from September 2014 until the dower is fully paid, and as long as the marriage is intact. Additionally, the minor was entitled to receive maintenance allowance, increasing it annually by 10 per cent, with effect from February 2015 until he reaches the age of majority.
The petitioner challenged the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2018 before the District Judge, Kohat, where the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.05.2019, being merit-less.
The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution before the Peshawar High Court (PHC), claiming that various findings of the trial court, which were maintained by the appellate court, may be set aside.
The grounds taken by the petitioner before the High Court were purely factual and did not challenge any error of law or jurisdiction. However, the High Court, despite invocation of its constitutional jurisdiction, treated these factual grounds as an appeal and decided the dispute on the facts. The petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court.
The High Court in constitutional jurisdiction cannot reappraise the evidence and decide the case on its facts. Interference is on limited grounds as an exception and not the rule.
The judgment said that the High Court could have interfered to prevent miscarriage of justice, which is not established in the instant case. In fact the High Court substituted and adjudicated on the facts and tendered its opinion, which amounts to having an appeal out of the Appellate Court’s judgment.
Justice Ayesha wrote that the objective of Article 199 of the Constitution is to foster justice, protect rights and correct any wrongs, for which, it empowers the High Court to rectify wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and address procedural illegality or irregularity that may have prejudiced a case.
However, it is emphasized that the High Court, in its capacity under Article 199, lacks the jurisdiction to re-examine or reconsider the facts of a case already decided by lower courts. Its role is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and procedural improprieties, ensuring the proper administration of justice.
In the present case, the petitioner pursued his case through the family court and its appeal in the district court and then also invoked the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction to re-argue his case amounting to a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction, whereby, the High Court upheld the factual findings of appellate court after making its own assessments on the same. Allowing a re-argument of the case constituted to arguing a second appeal which should not have been entertained regardless of the outcome of the case.
The right to appeal is a statutory creation, either provided or not provided by the legislature; if the law intended to provide for two opportunities of appeal, it would have explicitly done so. In the absence of a second appeal, the decision of the appellate court is considered final on the facts and it is not for High Court to offer another opportunity of hearing, especially in family cases where the legislature’s intent to not prolong the dispute is clear.
The purpose of this approach is to ensure efficient and expeditious resolution of legal disputes. However, if the High Court continues to entertain constitutional petitions against appellate court’s orders, under Article 199 of the Constitution, it opens floodgates to appellate litigation.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.