High Court lacks jurisdiction to re-examine facts already decided by lower courts: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Saturday held that the High Court, in its capacity under Article 199, lacks the jurisdiction to re-examine or reconsider the facts of a case already decided by lower courts. A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Sayed Hassan Rizvi dismissed a petition in a family matter case.

“The role of High Court is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and procedural improprieties, ensuring the proper administration of justice,” says a six-page judgment, authored by Justice Ayesha A Malik.

The court held that the objective of Article 199 of the Constitution is to foster justice, protect rights and correct any wrongs, for which it empowers the High Court to rectify wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and address procedural illegality or irregularity that may have prejudiced a case.

M Hammad Hassan has filed a petition in the apex court, challenging the order of Peshawar High Court dated December 16, 2022, dismissing his petition. The grounds taken by the petitioner before the High Court were purely factual and did not challenge any error of law or jurisdiction. Although, the High Court had dismissed his petition for being devoid of any merit however, the court, despite invocation of its constitutional jurisdiction, treated these factual grounds as an appeal and decided the dispute on the facts.

The court held that right to appeal is a statutory creation, either provided or not provided by the legislature; if the law intended to provide for two opportunities of appeal, it would have explicitly done so. In the absence of a second appeal, the decision of the appellate court is considered final on the facts and it is not for High Court to offer another opportunity of hearing, especially in family cases where the legislature’s intent not to prolong the dispute is clear.

“The purpose of this approach is to ensure efficient and expeditious resolution of legal disputes. However, if the High Court continues to entertain constitutional petitions against appellate court orders, under Article 199 of the Constitution, it opens floodgates to appellate litigation”, the court held. The court noted that closure of litigation is essential for a fair and efficient legal system, and the courts should not unwarrantedly make room for litigants to abuse the process of law. “Once a matter has been adjudicated upon on fact by the trial and the appellate courts, constitutional courts should not exceed their powers by reevaluating the facts or substituting the appellate court’s opinion with their own -- the acceptance of finality of the appellate court’s findings is essential for achieving closure in legal proceedings conclusively resolving disputes, preventing unnecessary litigation, and upholding the legislature’s intent to provide a definitive resolution through existing appeal mechanisms”, the court held.