SHC dismisses pleas challenging Sindh civil courts amendment bill

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed petitions challenging the Sindh Civil Court (Amendment) Bill with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the district courts in Karachi; however, it observed that once the bill has become an Act duly passed and approved by the provincial legislature, the petitioners are at liberty to seek any remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law.

A high court division bench headed by Acting chief justice Mohammad Junaid Ghaffar observed that though the issuance of notices has been ordered by a court, including a notice to the Sindh AG, at the time of filing of these petitions and passing of the said order, the impugned action was only to the extent of a bill proposing certain amendments to the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 and was not an Act of the provincial legislature.

The court observed that it seems that due to lack of proper assistance, notices have been issued to the respondents as well as to the advocate general, and not only this various applications have also been filed by certain interveners.

The SHC observed that it needs not reiterate that unless a bill has been duly approved and passed by the legislature in the form of an Act, the same does not come into force and has no legal effect. It said the petitioners seek to impugn the conduct of the executive in preparing legislation before it has been enacted by the provincial legislature.

The court further stated that clearly, if the legislation had been enacted, the petitioners’ remedy would have been to challenge its constitutionality, but they have not waited for this to happen. It said that instead, an attempt has been made to obstruct the executive’s authority i.e. initiation of legislation – which is part of the legislative process.

The court observed that at the time of filing of these petitions, the court approached to consider a matter that was pending before the provincial assembly; thus, being asked to intervene before they have concluded their work.

The court observed that it was required for the petitioners for invoking court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to first establish that they are aggrieved of what is being debated in the provincial assembly, and only then court can be approached for appropriate relief in relation to the actual or threatened infringement of any right(s).

The SHC said that admittedly, such an occasion had not arisen when the court was approached and relief sought in these petitions will not be appropriate unless it is effective, and that can only be, when a bill has been passed and approved as an Act.

The court further observed that this practice of entertaining petitions or challenge against a proposed bill has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in an unreported judgment in respect of the Practice & Procedure Bill, 2023.

The court observed that an argument was also made that now the bill has been passed; however, even in that case, the same is still not under challenge before the court in any manner, including any application for amending the petitions.

The high court observed that both these petitions being premature and without any cause of action are misconceived and dismissed the same with pending applications. It warned the petitioners to be careful in future and observed that once the bill has become an Act duly passed and approved by the provincial legislature, the petitioners are at liberty to seek any remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law.

Petitioners Sohail Hameed and Mohammad Ali Lakhani submitted in the petitions that Article 202 of the Constitution mandated that the high court may make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the high court or any of the subordinate court to it, but this constitutional mandate was subject to the constitution and the law.

They submitted that the Sindh Civil Court (Amendment) bill 2025 repealed the Sindh Chief Court Rules (original side) that were made under Article 202 of the Constitution. They submitted that the impugned legislation was in violation of Article 202 of the Constitution under which the Sindh High Court under its constitutional mandate had made the Sindh Chief Court Rules.

They submitted that Section 7 of the impugned bill cannot impose upon the original civil jurisdiction admissible to the high court irrespective of the operation as originally framed or as amendment by the impugned bill. They submitted that high court’s original civil jurisdiction was protected under the Article 175(2) of the Constitution.

The petitioners also raised legal and administrative questions over the implementation of the law and submitted that the impugned law was an expression of legislative incompetence and excesses.