Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has declared that a Supreme Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, cannot entertain questions that require facts.
“It is the power and privilege of the trial to investigate such controversy as they are disposed of on profits after taking into account the evidence led by the parties,” said a five -page sentence written by Justice Shakeel Ahmad.
Justice Ahmed was part of a bench with three members-led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi-AS heard plants filed against an order from Balochistan High Court (BHC) with regard to partial payment of the security amount paid by a contractor built the BHC building in 1986.
The Government of Balochistan’s Construction and Works (C&W) department had blacklisted the contractor in July 1991 due to unsatisfactory performance and lost his security.
However, the contractor filed a case in a lawsuit which handed down a judgment and a decree on May 4, 2006. Due to the failure of the C&W department to release the security amount to him, however, he filed an application for the right of execution to implement the judgment of the trial.
The executive court rejected the execution application on May 20, 2009 and declared that there is no mention of the release of the security amount in favor of the contractor in the trial.
The contractor submitted a civilian misconception to BHC, which converted the appeal to a constitutional report and issued notification to the C&W department and instructed it to submit details of the allegedly, which is allegedly paid to the contractor.
After conducting a factual investigation in this regard, on September 7, 2017, the court allowed partially the petition and ordered the C&W department to pay RS20,12,668 to the legal heirs of the contractor – who had died at that time – of security amounts within a period of thirty days.
The legal heirs from the contractor were of the opinion that they were entitled to the total security amount – RS68,67,668. Therefore, they filed a civilian petition in the Supreme Court. The C&W department was also unhappy with the BHC judgment and also filed a civilian petition.
SC in his judgment noted that the clause described in the applicant reflected that the petitioner had not made any prayer for the release of the security amount. The C&W department also opposed the BHC order for the release of the security amount and stated that it had already released the security of the contractor.
It noted that High Court decided to have the case investigated by summoning official items and conducting a full investigation into the presence of the parties. It said this exercise could not have been performed in written jurisdiction.
“The scope and framework for the Supreme Court procedure, in the immediate case, was limited to the extent of the judgment and decree of the trial, and the order dated 20 May 2009, adopted by Executing Court and rejected the execution application on the grounds that the requirement for the recovery of the security amount mentioned in the execution was not adopted. The contractor.
“The Supreme Court has not been in line with any of the above -mentioned prayers and the judgment and decree adopted by the trial, and the executive court and continued to decide the case after conducting a detailed investigation.
“In our opinion, High Court thus exceeded in his authority by lingering the intended judgment and calling for interference. In our opinion, the actual controversy that the parties traveled can only be resolved after registration of pro and versus evidence through a civil case,” added it.
“[Therefore] The BHC judgment is set aside. The civilian petition filed by the legal heirs of the contractor by seeking the release of the remaining security amount is rejected and left rejected.
“[The petitioners may] Search relief from the appropriate forum, if recommended, subject to all fair and legal objections from the other side. No order of costs, “the order said.
