Now district judges will hear civil appeals, declares IHC
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Friday, ruled that instead of the high court, district judges would hear the civil appeals after the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2025.
A division bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Inaam Amin Minhas, declared that in a civil reference titled, 'The Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2025 and Transfer of Appeals from Islamabad High Court to District Judges (East) & (West), Islamabad, in pursuance thereof.'
The IHC office moved the instant reference and attached a list of cases pertaining to Regular First Appeals filed against the decrees or orders passed by learned civil judges working under the administrative control of the IHC. The list contained 1594 RFAs, which is stated to be tentative.
The questions formulated in the reference were included whether amendment made in Section 18 is a matter of procedure and had retrospective effect? and whether High Court can transfer pending appeals to the District Judges on its own motion without notice to the parties to the lis?
Justice Azam, who authored the judgment, said that the power of High Court delegated under Section 24, CPC, is further fortified in the judgment passed in Khan Muhammad and others Vs. Ishtiaq Hussain reported as 1987 SCMR 1482.
He maintained, 'A statute amending the forum for institution of appeal or that of the Appellate Court during the pendency of the lis will obviously have retrospective effect unless otherwise provided by the subsequent Act. Prior to the instant amendment, appeals against interim orders passed by Civil Judges, where the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction exceeded Rs. 2,500,000/-, were being filed in the High Court.'
'However, it is clarified that now any order passed by a Civil Judge during pendency of the proceedings is appealable before the District Judge. The Office shall also transmit those appeals filed against interim orders to the respective District Judges,' said the IHC.
It continued that there is no opposition to this legal proposition or to the course adopted from either side. Resultantly, all the appeals filed against decrees or orders passed by learned Civil Judges, including but not limited to those listed in the annexed list, are hereby ordered to be remitted to the learned District Judges of the respective Divisions, who may entrust the same to the Additional District Judges in the ordinary distribution of work.
It further said that given the fact that these appeals pertain to the year 2013, the district judges are expected to place the older appeals on fast track and dispose of the same as per guidelines and policy on the subject.
The bench also said that the M.I.T. of this Court is also directed to oversee the distribution of the oldest appeals proactively and ensure their expeditious disposal, and submit periodic reports to this Court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
6 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Now district judges will hear civil appeals, declares IHC
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Friday, ruled that instead of the high court, district judges would hear the civil appeals after the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2025. A division bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Inaam Amin Minhas, declared that in a civil reference titled, 'The Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2025 and Transfer of Appeals from Islamabad High Court to District Judges (East) & (West), Islamabad, in pursuance thereof.' The IHC office moved the instant reference and attached a list of cases pertaining to Regular First Appeals filed against the decrees or orders passed by learned civil judges working under the administrative control of the IHC. The list contained 1594 RFAs, which is stated to be tentative. The questions formulated in the reference were included whether amendment made in Section 18 is a matter of procedure and had retrospective effect? and whether High Court can transfer pending appeals to the District Judges on its own motion without notice to the parties to the lis? Justice Azam, who authored the judgment, said that the power of High Court delegated under Section 24, CPC, is further fortified in the judgment passed in Khan Muhammad and others Vs. Ishtiaq Hussain reported as 1987 SCMR 1482. He maintained, 'A statute amending the forum for institution of appeal or that of the Appellate Court during the pendency of the lis will obviously have retrospective effect unless otherwise provided by the subsequent Act. Prior to the instant amendment, appeals against interim orders passed by Civil Judges, where the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction exceeded Rs. 2,500,000/-, were being filed in the High Court.' 'However, it is clarified that now any order passed by a Civil Judge during pendency of the proceedings is appealable before the District Judge. The Office shall also transmit those appeals filed against interim orders to the respective District Judges,' said the IHC. It continued that there is no opposition to this legal proposition or to the course adopted from either side. Resultantly, all the appeals filed against decrees or orders passed by learned Civil Judges, including but not limited to those listed in the annexed list, are hereby ordered to be remitted to the learned District Judges of the respective Divisions, who may entrust the same to the Additional District Judges in the ordinary distribution of work. It further said that given the fact that these appeals pertain to the year 2013, the district judges are expected to place the older appeals on fast track and dispose of the same as per guidelines and policy on the subject. The bench also said that the M.I.T. of this Court is also directed to oversee the distribution of the oldest appeals proactively and ensure their expeditious disposal, and submit periodic reports to this Court. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Bandial had sought increase in number of SC judges: CB
ISLAMABAD: The constitutional bench Thursday revealed that in fact former Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial had asked for increasing the number of judges in the Supreme Court. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel divulged that while responding to the arguments of Hamid Khan that more judges were inducted in the Supreme Court (SC) so they be included in the constitutional bench for hearing of review petitions against the SC's judgment on reserved seats. Hamid Khan, representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), contended that was the reason the judges, who passed the majority judgment, including the author judge, were excluded from the bench. He also complained of not fixing review petitions against the majority judgment, which was delivered on July 12, 2024, before the enactment of 26th Constitutional Amendment. 8-member bench to hear pleas against SC bill Justice Mandokhel said; 'According to my information, request for increasing judges in Supreme Court was from former chief justice Umar Ata Bandial.' Justice Amin, explaining reason for delay in fixation of review petition, said because of two members of the Committee, set up under Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, the reviews were delayed. Justice Amin further said after the 12th July judgment, when review petitions were filed then former Chief Justice (Qazi Faez) called a Committee's meeting to decide about hearing of review petitions. However, two members [Justice Mansoor and Justice Munib] at that time said were on summer vacations. Hamid Khan then contended that the review petition should have been heard after a decision on 26th Constitutional Amendment. Justice Mandokhel responded that review petition was filed prior to petitions against the 26th Amendment. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. At the onset of the proceeding, Justice Mandokhail inquired from PTI lawyer; 'Don't you think 3-day, time-line given in Article 51 of the constitution, has been extended in 8-judge's verdict.' Salman Akram Raja, appearing on behalf of PTI, replied, 'no'. He submitted that the judgment actually allowed the independents to join a political party to that they belonged. He told that the judgment derived power from Section 66 of the Election Act, which states how a candidate becomes a member of a political party. Raja also contended that after 24th December 2023, the ECP refused to recognise PTI as a political party, and declined to issue list of PTI reserved seats for women. Justice Mandokhel reminded Raja that in the main case, he had accepted the status of PTI candidates as independents, and admitted that he would not have any objection if the reserved seats were given to the SIC. Raja recalled that during the proceeding of the main case, Justice Athar Minallah raised issue of complete justice and asked won't he has objection if reserved seats were given to the PTI. The counsel said that he had bowed to that offer, adding the 8-judge judgment declared that joining of SIC by independents is nonest. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that there is nothing on record that 41 candidates, out of 80, filed party affiliation certificate or mentioned PTI in their nomination papers. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar remarked that if 39 independents could mention in their nomination papers PTI, then why 41 candidates did not write PTI. He questioned whether they had the fear that if they would do that than their papers would be rejected. Justice Mandokhel observed had the 41 candidates also mentioned PTI in their nomination paper then maximum damage they could face was the rejection of the papers. Justice Muhammad Hashim Kakar questioned whether Section 94 is still part of Elections Act? Raja replied that he went to the Lahore High Court (LHC) against this provision, but the High Court dismissed it without passing any order, and remanded the matter to the ECP. Raja informed that he had challenged that order before the apex court, but the registrar's office returned his petition on 2nd February 2024. He told that the majority judgment declared the Explanation in Section 94 ultra vires of the constitution. Justice Mazhar inquired whether Section 94 was declared ultra vires in the short order or the judgment. Raja responded that in paras 4 and 5 of the majority judgment it was clarified why Section 94 was declared ultra vires. However, Justice Mazhar noted that there is no such declaration in the short order. He said once a thing is not considered in the short order then how come finding on it could be given in the detailed reasoning, adding this is a legal question, as it will come before the Court in future. The case was adjourned until Friday (June 27). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Punjab PA approves Rs5,335bn budget
LAHORE: The Punjab Assembly on Thursday approved a tax-free budget of Rs 5,335 billion for the fiscal year 2025-26, maintaining the current tax structure without imposing any new taxes. The Finance Bill 2025-26 was also passed, ensuring no changes in provincial taxes, property tax, or transport tax, with no additional levies on industries, agriculture, health, or education sectors. During the session, the House approved 41 demands for grants worth Rs4,306.9792 billion, while rejecting eight cut motions presented by the opposition. The newly passed budget and finance bill will take effect from July 1, 2025. Key allocations in the budget includes; Rs120 billion for construction of roads and bridges, Rs462 billion for pensions, Rs258 billion for healthcare facilities, Rs137 billion for education reforms, Rs200 billion for police to maintain law and order, Rs27 billion for jail administration, Rs1 billion for civil defence, Rs26 billion for farmers welfare, Rs66 billion for agricultural loans, Rs18.22 billion for industrial development and Rs37.96 billion for irrigation projects. Moreover, the assembly approved Rs910 billion for various development projects, Rs161 billion for government buildings, Rs26.5 billion for agriculture, Rs19 billion for veterinary services and Rs1.6 billion for fisheries. Grants for registration, stamps, motor vehicle acts, and excise were also approved. Four significant bills were presented by Mian Mujtaba Shujaur Rehman which include Punjab Autism School and Resource Centre Bill 2025, Urban Immovable Property Tax (Amendment) Bill 2025, Essential Commodities Price Control (Amendment) Bill 2025 and Punjab Labour Courts Bill 2025 These bills were referred to relevant standing committees, with the Speaker seeking reports within two months. During the session, government member Saeed Akbar Nawani raised objections over duplicate serial numbers (35 and 41) in the demands for grants, suggesting they should be merged for clarity. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Mian Mujtaba Shujaur Rehman responded that the practice was longstanding but assured a review to determine if a technical merger was feasible. The Punjab Assembly session was commenced under the chairmanship of Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan after a delay of 4 hours and 6 minutes. The proceedings began with heated exchanges over a point of order, as government member Munawar Ghous lashed out at the alleged illegal actions of the Counter-Cybercrime Department (CCD). Ghous claimed that a former councillor from his constituency was unlawfully arrested by a CCD DSP, handcuffed, paraded in public, and humiliated. He further alleged that the officer slapped the detainee, recorded videos, and encouraged bystanders to film the incident, saying, 'Look at him and make videos.' Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan termed the act unconstitutional and illegal, stating, 'If a video was indeed made, it violates both the law and a High Court order.' He directed the Provincial Minister for Parliamentary Affairs to investigate the matter, calling it a 'bad practice.' In response, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Mujtaba Shujaur Rehman assured the assembly that he would look into the issue immediately. The Speaker also emphasized the need for the government to disarm the public, stating, 'I will consider this government successful only when it retrieves weapons from people's hands.' He expressed concern over personal vendettas leading to entire villages living in fear, urging the minister to take the matter to the cabinet. 'Armed civilians spread terror, and murders are occurring in broad daylight,' he added. Minister Shujaur Rehman responded that Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz was already working on a campaign to eliminate weapons from society and eradicate such a culture. He recalled that the cabinet had previously discussed reopening arms licences in Punjab. Meanwhile, Speaker Punjab Assembly Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan read the ruling regarding his decision on June 16th incident in which the Speaker suspend opposition member Hassan Malik for his misconduct during the budget session. The Speaker stated that opposition members attempted to disrupt the budget speech, with Hassan Malik allegedly throwing the budget book at the Finance Minister. 'After reviewing the video footage, it became clear that this behaviour was repeated, forcing the Finance Minister to halt his speech,' the Speaker said. While acknowledging that protest is a constitutional right, he emphasized, 'I will not allow the assembly to be taken over. I have the authority to suspend members for misconduct. Attempts to obstruct House proceedings will not be tolerated.' The Speaker warned that strict action would be taken against any member trying to disrupt the assembly's functioning. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
