Curbing practice of filing frivolous cases: SC for imposing costs under Order XXVIII, Rule 3

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court noted that the practice of instituting frivolous and vexatious cases can be curbed by imposing costs under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, noted that while hearing an appeal against the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad judgment dated 02.07.2024.

During the proceedings, the Court observed that according to the statistics provided by the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, there are about 2.2 million (2,255,295) cases pending before all courts in the country.

The Court said that such frivolous, vexatious and speculative litigation unduly burdens the courts giving artificial rise to pendency of cases which in turn clogs the justice system and delays the resolution of genuine disputes. “Such litigation is required to be rooted out of the system and strongly discouraged and one of the ways to curb such practice of instituting frivolous and vexatious cases is by imposing of costs under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 which lay the foundation for expeditious justice and promote a smart legal system, enhancing access to justice by entertaining genuine claims.”

The bench dismissed the petition with costs of Rs50,000. He told the appellant to pay this cost to the respondents, saying in case of its failure, the same shall be recoverable as a money decree. It directed the office to dispatch the copy of this order be dispatched to the respondents for information.

The petitioner filed a suit for partition, permanent, possession, permanent and mandatory injunction regarding the built-up property constructed house two floors over land measuring onekanalin Korang Valley, Islamabad.

The suit property was owned by the father of the parties and after necessary proceedings, the trial court issued a preliminary decree vide order dated 13.01.2020 and appointed a local commission. Subsequently, reserve price of the suit property was fixed by the trial court which was objected by the petitioner on 16.03.2020. Thereafter, a court auctioneer was appointed by the trial court who conducted the auction proceedings and submitted his final report to the court on 18.03.2023 which was also objected by the petitioner.

The said objections were turned down by the trial court vide order dated 12.04.2023 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 08.07.2023. A revision petition was filed by the respondent No 7 before the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad which was allowed vide judgment dated 02.07.2024. Hence, the instant petition for leave to appeal.

The bench after examining the record and the IHC impugned judgment noted that the present petition is completely frivolous and vexatious and the process of the court has been abused by the petitioner just to pressurise the other side and delay the matter on one pretext or the other, thereby depriving her siblings and mother from the lawful auction of the said suit property. Therefore, it does not warrant any interference.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024