| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4481 = 2026 SLD 4481 = 2026 PLJ 331 |
Islamabad High Court
F.A.O No. 97 of 2025
Presented By: INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
M/s. Kashif Ali Malik, Qaisar Abbas Gondal and Barrister Gul Share Ali, Advocates (for Appellants No. 1 & 2). M/s. Abdul Basit Bhatti, Muhammad Saqib Bhatti, Qaisar Abbas Gondal, Syed Wasif Hussain Shah Kazmi and Muhammad Hamza Malik, Advocates (for Appellant No. 1). Mian Muhammad Kahsif and Mr. Nasir Mehmood, Advocates for
Respondent No. 1. Ex-parte
Respondents No. 2 to 4.
F.A.O No. 97 of 2025
Presented By: INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
M/s. Kashif Ali Malik, Qaisar Abbas Gondal and Barrister Gul Share Ali, Advocates (for Appellants No. 1 & 2). M/s. Abdul Basit Bhatti, Muhammad Saqib Bhatti, Qaisar Abbas Gondal, Syed Wasif Hussain Shah Kazmi and Muhammad Hamza Malik, Advocates (for Appellant No. 1). Mian Muhammad Kahsif and Mr. Nasir Mehmood, Advocates for
Respondent No. 1. Ex-parte
Respondents No. 2 to 4.
LATIF HAKEEM and another--Appellants
VERSUS
SAMSUNG GULF ELECTRONICS FZE and others--Respondents
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 44-A, 13(c) , 13(f)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 10-A
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----Ss. 44-A, 13(c) & (f)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 10-A--Foreign decree--Execution in Pakistan--Civil and criminal liability--Independent adjudication--Scope--Criminal conviction--Civil liability--Independent adjudication--Due process--Fair trial--Binding precedent--Contrary to settled law of Pakistan--Effect--Where a foreign judgment was contrary to settled law of Pakistan as declared by Supreme Court, such inconsistency directly attracted exception contained in Section 13(c), CPC--A foreign judgment founded on an incorrect view of international law or refusing to recognize law of Pakistan, where applicable, could not be regarded as conclusive--Such foreign judgment was not entitled to execution in Pakistan to extent that it was based upon principles inconsistent with settled law of Pakistan and binding principles governing civil adjudication; therefore, a foreign decree could not be treated as conclusive for execution purposes--In matters relating to civil liability, due process required Civil Court to independently examine pleadings, documentary evidence and oral evidence produced by parties and thereafter determine their respective rights and obligations according to standard of proof applicable to civil proceedings--A civil decree could not lawfully be founded merely upon findings recorded in criminal proceedings, as criminal and civil cases served different purposes, were governed by different procedural laws and required different standards of proof--Findings of a Criminal Court could not replace independent judicial inquiry required in civil proceedings for determining contractual or financial liability--Appeal accepted. [Pp. 340 & 341] A & B Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----Ss. 13(c) & (f)--Foreign decree--Execution--Due process--Criminal judgment relied upon for determination of civil liability--Where a foreign decree was sought to be enforced in Pakistan, Executing Court was under a statutory obligation to examine whether foreign judgment satisfied conditions prescribed under Section 13, CPC--A foreign judgment rendered in disregard of fundamental legal principles…