PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Sindh and another vs Messrs
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit founded on breach of contract and damages, which was partly decreed in favor of the respondent. Instead of filing a regular appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner, represented by the Advocate General's office, chose to file a review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was also delayed. The review petition was dismissed, and a subsequent appeal against that dismissal was also rejected by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether indulgence could be granted to the government on the grounds of colossal public funds being involved, despite the incompetent handling of the litigation by the Advocate General's office. The Court held that the state is expected to appoint competent officers paid through public money to defend its interests, and the personal involvement of public servants in other matters does not justify professional negligence here. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Can a party file a review petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as a substitute for a regular appeal against a judgment and decree?
- Whether the involvement of colossal public funds justifies judicial indulgence for procedural lapses and incompetent handling of litigation by the Advocate General's office?
- Is the government entitled to special leniency in condoning delays or procedural errors due to the alleged incompetence of its state counsel?
- Section 114, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER.
MUSHIR ALAM, J.---It appears that the suit filed by the respondent was decided vide judgment dated 5.5.2017 and decree dated 13.5.2017. The suit was founded on breach of contract and damages. From the record it appears that the remedy was firstly pursued before the Ombudsman which was allowed vide order 10.8.1999, however , the Ombudsman reviewed its order on 12.2.2001, which was maintained by the High Court with the observation that the respondent may avail the remedy before the Civil Court. The civil suit filed before the Court after recording the evidence was partly allowed as noted above. It may be observed that instead of filing an appeal against the judgment and decree as provided for under the Law, the respondent chose to file review under section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. on 19.8.2019 which review itself was delayed. The review was dismissed which was challenged before the High Court in appeal. The appeal was also dismissed through a well reasoned judgment dated 20.3.2019.
2. Learned Additional A.G. attempted to justify such course however he has no answer to justify filing of the review against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge, which shows the level of competence of the Advocate General Office which is run by public money . The contention of the learned Additional A.G. that since the colossal public funds are involved, theref ore, indulgence may be given is not acceptable. It may be observed that the salaries to the Advocate Generals and Assistant Advocate Generals and other officers are paid through public money and it is expected that competent officers are appointed to defend government interest. It is noticed that the officers who come to defend the government case before the Court are not in fact as competent as required to be and when public servants are personally involved in the case the best of the best counsel are engaged. In such view of the matter we are not inclined to give any indulgence. No case for interference is made out. Leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Zulfiqar Ali Domki vs Province of Sindh & others 2019 SHC 454