Sindh govt told to amend law to settle pecuniary jurisdiction issue SHC

The Sindh High Court has directed the provincial government to give immediate consideration to the overwhelming quantum of pendency in civil nature cases by introducing further amendments in the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil courts of Karachi.

Issuing a detailed judgment on petitions with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil courts in Karachi, the high court directed the government to consider such remedial action by introducing amendments as it thought best whether through tabling an amendment to Section 7 of the Sindh civil courts ordinance and other related provisions to eliminate the exception to the jurisdiction of the district judge in respect of Karachi or limit that exception to encompass only those civil suits and proceedings that fall above the prescribed pecuniary threshold and at the same time are of a commercial nature, involving commercial disputes.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ahmed Ali M Sheikh and Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed also emphasized the need for the establishment of commercial courts in the province as the same have already been established in Punjab. The bench asked why such a salutary step may not be taken in the Sindh province, especially when Karachi is well recognised as a centre of commerce and the economic engine of the country.

It expressed confident that the provincial government remains cognizant of its overarching obligation to ensure expeditious and inexpensive justice, and is sanguine that it will live up to the expectations of citizens clamouring in that regard.

The court observed that proper administration of justice is well recognised as being vital to the social order and it has long been a concern of civilised societies to find ways and means of identifying and removing defects and deficiencies as are the cause of a backlog in the judicial system.

The court after perusal of the pending cases’ record observed that the majority of the pending civil cases are thus non-commercial and of a nature where the issues arising for determination are routinely dealt with by the courts at the district level. It observed that such cases nonetheless originate in this court by virtue of Section 7 of the ordinance only on account of the value of the claim in such strength of numbers as to clog the dispensation of justice.

The court observed that there were only 14,202 first class suits pending before the district courts of Karachi as on February 7, 2023 with the total number of such courts being 63 and the average pendency per judge being 225 while on average, the life of a suit in those courts is 682 days.

It further observed that it is apparent from the data available that the present scheme of Section 7 of the ordinance creates an unnecessary bottleneck on the original side constricting the smooth passage of cases and suffocating the expeditious dispensation of justice.

The petitioners have argued that cases that ought to otherwise be dispersed across the ordinary courts of civil judicature falling under the aegis of the district judge are instead concentrated before the high court by operation of Section 7 of the Sindh civil courts ordinance. They contended that curtailment of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the courts of the district judge in Karachi District is discriminatory, as such jurisdiction is otherwise unlimited across all other districts of the province and in fact throughout the length and breadth of the country as a whole.

They argued that the manner in which the jurisdiction of the courts to hear civil suits and proceedings in Karachi District has been structured is irrational as it promotes the concentration of cases before the high court, resulting in undue pendency and delay. They said that the procedure adopted by the court for purposes of the trial in such matters routinely entails the appointment of a legal practitioner as a commissioner for recording the evidence, whereas evidence at the district level is recorded by the court itself.

It was argued that the practices adopted by the high court undermines the evidentiary exercise, as the rules of evidence are not properly adhered to due to the informal atmosphere prevalent during the course of proceedings conducted before a commissioner. They submitted that the capacity of the high court to appraise the evidence is diminished as the court is not in a position to appreciate the demeanour of the witnesses.

Several advocates practising in the SHC opposed the petitions and argued that Section 7 of the ordinance was neither discriminatory nor otherwise ultra vires of the Constitution, hence was not amenable to being struck down. They submitted that despite the mounting pendency and

backlog of cases on the original side of the high court, the jurisdiction conferred in terms Section 7 ought to be preserved. They contended that the capacity of the court could be enhanced by increasing the sanctioned strength of judges and by drawing on support from judicial officers from the ranks of the lower judiciary to perform a supporting role in such areas as the recording of evidence.

The Sindh advocate general submitted that the exception in respect of the district of Karachi had been necessitated by the fact that Karachi was always a port city and historically a hub of commerce, where commercial disputes involving intricate points of law would arise for determination. He sought dismissal of the petitions but conceded that the original side was inundated with litigation of a non- commercial nature by virtue of the purely pecuniary nature of the jurisdiction conferred in terms of Section 7 of the ordinance, which could be more effectively dealt with by the ordinary civil courts, and that the channelisation of such cases before this court undermined the effective adjudication of commercial disputes.