| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2410 2026 SLD 2410 = 2026 PHC 4016 |
Peshawar High Court
CM No. 193-B/2026 In WP No.437-B/2024
Presented By: (MUHAMMAD TARIQ AFRIDI) JUDGE
For applicant: (Judicial Department) CM No. 193-B/2026 In WP No.437-B/2024 Dilawar Khan & 02 others Vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 02 others JUDGMENT Mr. Ali Gohar Durrani Advocate (via video link) Date of hearing: 10.06.2026
CM No. 193-B/2026 In WP No.437-B/2024
Presented By: (MUHAMMAD TARIQ AFRIDI) JUDGE
For applicant: (Judicial Department) CM No. 193-B/2026 In WP No.437-B/2024 Dilawar Khan & 02 others Vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 02 others JUDGMENT Mr. Ali Gohar Durrani Advocate (via video link) Date of hearing: 10.06.2026
Dilawar Khan & 02 others
VS
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 02 others.
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 199
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 2(2), 5(2)
SUMMARY: Held: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973---Article 199---Article 199(1A)---Code of Civil Procedure, 1908--- Section 2(2)---Order XLI, Rule 5(2)---Suspension of judgment---Constitutional jurisdiction--- Maintainability of application---Scope---Applicant, Director Anti-Corruption, sought suspension of judgment rendered in constitutional proceedings, whereby FIR registered by Anti-Corruption Establishment had been quashed and directions had been issued to place matter before competent authority for initiation of appropriate proceedings against concerned officers for abuse of authority and lack of bona fides in registration of a criminal case---Application was filed under Order XLI, Rule 5(2) CPC to enable applicant to avail further legal remedy in accordance with law---Applicant contended that directions contained in judgment offended Article 199(1A) of the Constitution and Section 5 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961, and relied upon previous orders wherein operation of judgments had been suspended to facilitate recourse to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan---Held, provisions of Order XLI, Rule 5(2) CPC apply to decrees passed in exercise of ordinary civil jurisdiction and cannot be invoked for suspension of judgments rendered by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution---Mere final adjudication of a matter by a constitutional Court does not transform its judgment into a “decree” within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC---Judgments delivered under Article 199 derive their authority, nature and enforceability from the Constitution itself and stand on a distinct legal footing---Previous orders suspending judgments in other matters were passed in their own peculiar facts and statutory contexts and did not constitute a binding principle authorizing suspension of constitutional judgments as a matter of right---Directions contained in impugned judgment merely required placement of matter before competent authority for consideration and initiation of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, and neither curtailed nor prejudiced jurisdiction of any statutory…
Login required to view the attachment.