Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has declared that a superior court, while exercising jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution, cannot entertain matters that require objective investigation.
“It is the prerogative and privilege of the Court of First Instance to examine such controversies to be eliminated by merit after taking into account the tests led by the parties,” said a five -page verdict authorized by Judge Shakeel Ahmad.
Judge Ahmed was part of a bank of three members, led by the president of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, who heard the pleasures presented against an order of the Superior Court of Baluchistan (BHC) with respect to the partial payment of the security amount paid by a contractor built by the BHC building in 1986.
The Construction and Works Department (C&W) of the Baluchistan government (C & W) was on the blacklist the contractor in July 1991 because of unsatisfactory performance and lost its safety.
The contractor filed a lawsuit in a court of first instance that issued a sentence and a decree on May 4, 2006. However, due to the failure by the C&W department to release the security amount, he filed a request before the Executive Court for the implementation of the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
The Executive Court dismissed the request for execution on May 20, 2009, declaring that the release of the security amount in favor of the contractor in the order of the Court of First Instance is not mentioned.
The contractor presented a civil appeal to various BHC, which converted the appeal into a petition for the Constitution and issued a notice to the C&W department, ordering that it submit details of the amount allegedly paid to the contractor.
After conducting a factual investigation in this regard, the Court on September 7, 2017 partially allowed the petition, ordering the C&W department to pay RS20,12,668 to the legal heirs of the contractor, who had died by then, for the amount of security within a period of thirty days.
The contractor’s legal heirs had the opinion that they were entitled to the total security amount: RS68,67,668. Therefore, they presented a civil request in the Supreme Court. The C&W department was also not happy with the BHC judgment and also presented a civil request.
The SC in its verdict pointed out that the clause established in the lawsuit reflected that the petitioner had not made any prayer for the release of the amount of security. The C&W department also opposed the BHC order for the release of the security amount, indicating that it had already released the security for the contractor.
He pointed out that the Superior Court decided to examine the matter by calling official records and conducting a complete investigation in the presence of the parties. He said that this exercise could not have been done in the jurisdiction of writing.
“The scope and scope of the procedures before the Superior Court, in the instantaneous case, was limited within the reach of the sentence and the decree of the Court of First Instance and the order dated May 20, 2009, approved by the Executive Court, dismissing the request for execution claiming that the recovery claim of the security amount mentioned in the request for execution was not described in favor of the contractor.
“The Superior Court has not attended any of the sentences mentioned above and the ruling and the decree approved by the Court of First Instance, and the Order of the Executive Court, and proceeded to decide the case after doing a detailed investigation.
“Therefore, in our opinion, the Superior Court exceeded its authority by approving the contested trial, asking for interference. In our opinion, the objective controversy raised by the parties can only be resolved after registering professional evidence through a civil lawsuit,” he added.
“[Therefore] BHC’s trial is canceled. The civil request presented by the legal heirs of the contractor, in search of the release of the remaining security amount, is dismissed and the license was rejected.
“[The petitioners may] Look for the relief of the appropriate forum, if it is advised, subject to all fair and legal objections on the other side. There is no order regarding costs, “the order said.
