Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 850 2023 SLD 850 2023 PLD 298
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P. No. 3127 of 2020, decided on 12th January, 2023. (Against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 06.10.2020, passed in Writ Petition No.10492 of 2016).  Date of hearing: 12th January, 2023.
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ
Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Respondent No.3 in person.

Qazi NAVEED UL ISLAM---Petitioner

VERSUS

DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT and others-----Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) Supreme Court Rules, 1980--- ----O.XXVIII, R. 3---Frivolous litigation---Abusing process of the Court---Costs, imposition of---Litigation initiated by a person having no interest in the matter to avenge a private grudge---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---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---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.100,000/ that were to be deposited by the petitioner in the Trial Court for payment to the respondent. Present case is a classic case of abusing the process of the court. Respondent has been punished with a penalty of pursuing an outright frivolous litigation for a period of more than a decade, just for the reason that he had got a succession certificate in his favour to receive a meagre amount of Rs.32,185/- left by his deceased father in a bank account, and that too on the applications of the persons who had no right or interest in the legacy of his deceased father rather had been in litigation over some other property first against the deceased father of respondent and after his death against respondent and his mother and siblings. When asked, as to what right or interest of the petitioner or his predecessor was affected by the issuance of the succession certificate in favour of respondent, the answer of their counsel was nothing but that the petitioner and his predecessor had acted just as informers of the commission of offences of fraud and perjury with the court during the proceedings of the application for succession certificate. The spiteful conduct of the petitioner and his predecessor in making repeated applications and venomously pursuing them up to the Supreme Court did not paint of picture of a bona fide informer committed to unfold the offences of fraud and perjury for the love of justice, equity and fairplay. The conduct of the petitioner reeks of private vengeance against respondent and his mother…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492