Case pending before higher court no ground to halt trial without stay order: SC

ISLAMABAD, Aug 18 (APP):The Supreme Court has ruled that mere pendency of a case before a higher court cannot justify stopping or delaying proceedings before a trial court in the absence of an explicit stay order, observing that remanded cases must be decided within a reasonable period without unnecessary adjournments.

A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail issued a detailed judgment in a Civil Petition and directed the trial court to conclude an eight-year-old remanded case within two months.

The court held that a stay becomes effective only through a formal judicial order issued by a competent court. Mere pendency of proceedings before a higher court does not prevent a subordinate court from proceeding with a case.

It observed that where no competent court had ordered suspension of proceedings, allowing a case to remain pending for years could have the practical effect of keeping the proceedings suspended, which was not acceptable.

The Supreme Court further held that a remanded case could not be treated as a fresh case. The concerned court was required to proceed in accordance with the scope of the remand order and conclude the matter without unnecessary delay.

In the case, the appellate court had set aside the trial court’s dismissal of the suit for failure to produce evidence and remanded it to provide the plaintiff a fair opportunity to lead evidence. The Lahore High Court declined to interfere with the appellate court’s order.

The Supreme Court held that the appellate court had acted within its jurisdiction in providing an opportunity for a decision on merits, while the High Court had also found no jurisdictional defect or material irregularity warranting interference in its limited revisional jurisdiction.

The court observed that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was supervisory and limited, while the Supreme Court could interfere under Article 185(3) of the Constitution only in cases involving a clear legal or jurisdictional error, failure to consider material evidence, application of an incorrect legal principle or gross miscarriage of justice.

The court noted that the remand order had been passed nearly eight years earlier, yet the case had not reached finality, and there was nothing on record showing that any competent court had stayed the proceedings.

The trial court was directed to conclude the remanded proceedings within two months of receiving the Supreme Court’s judgment, excluding the summer vacation period, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil petition and directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the registrars of all High Courts for placing the matter before their respective chief justices and issuing appropriate directions for expeditious disposal of remanded cases by subordinate courts.