Islamabad:
Another dispute broke out before the High Court of Islamabad (IHC) while judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq refused to accept the order of a bench of two judges to transfer civil calls, awaiting the high court for decision, to the judicial power of the district, and refusing to transfer the calls to its docket.
The division bench, including judge Azam Khan and judge Inam Amin Minhas, had ordered the transfer of 1,594 civil calls to the judicial power of district following the law for modifying civil courts 2025 which redefines the jurisdiction of appeal in civil matters.
Judge Ishaq called on the judicial order of the illegal bench. “I arrive at the rather embarrassing conclusion than the decision of the division bench in civil reference n ° 1/2025 was CORM NO JUDICE, by Incuriam, and an exercise of masked administrative authority as a judicial decision,” he said in an order.
Judge Ishaq declared that the order of the division bench had violated article 175, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. He wondered why he did not come to the minds of the judges of the bench or to the representatives of the bar that the parties may have to pay additional fees to the lawyers for appeal hearings before the district courts.
“If the interest of the litigants really imported into the office, the division bench and the representatives of the bars, they could easily have interpreted.
The IHC judge challenged the bench when the amendment’s appeal transfer in a prospective manner, “said that the order made by judge Ishaq. The legislator is presumed to be aware of all the laws that the legislative assembly intended to leave the courts to apply the previous law to decide the fate of pending cases and the preponderance of the previous one,” said the order.
“I Say with a Heavy Heart that the Office, My Learned Brothers, as well as the bars representatives, have not careful a bit about the plight of the litigants before the high court, the utter incompevenience they will suffer by a de novo hearing of their appeals by the district courts Burden they will have to bear by paying fresh fees to the counsels for boxes that have been, in Most part, substantially argued before the high court and, above all, they did not care in the least much higher pension before the judges before the district courts, which also conduct civil and criminal trials, Unemployed unmatched favorite to unload the burden of the High Court, “he continued.
“I feel sympathy for the judges before the district courts, which, in all likelihood, would wonder why the eleven judges of the High Court could not what their belts could decide 1,594 calls instead of unloading them to an almost equal number of additional district judges which are much, much more in charge by work than we are”.
The court also ordered the office to circulate the copy of this order to all the judges for their information and, if one of them agrees with me, then to plan to say it in a statement written to the chief judge “.
“In addition, the office will also send a copy of this order to the Islamabad bar council and the two barbardes for traffic among bars,” said the order. The hearing was adjourned until last week in September.
