DANIYAL KHAN vs NADEEM AHMED art — 2026 CLC 527 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

DANIYAL KHAN VS NADEEM AHMED art.199---High Court, jurisdiction of---Constitutional and appellate jurisdiction---Distinction---With constitutional jurisdiction, the Court cannot act as an appellate court, reviewing the decision for accuracy and deciding on the correct course of action or order to be made---Constitutional petitions are distinct from appeals, which are considered as a continuation of a trial/suit---The High Court does not have the authority to perform the duties of a Civil Court since its writ jurisdiction is distinct from its regular civil court powers---The only purpose of the High Court's jurisdiction is to rectify any mistake made by the lower body when exercising its jurisdiction, which differs from an action applied under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---The High Court is not a court of fact and will not question disputed facts and re-appreciate evidence by itself; it cannot sit as a Court of appeal---The jurisdiction of the High Court is just remedial, not a cloak of appeal disguised to scrutinize every subject in depth---The High Court has no jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the decision, except-in writ of certiorari, especially when illegality and irregularity are apparent in the impugned judgment, but it cannot go either into review of evidence or appreciating the same as in the constitutional jurisdiction the court cannot sit as a court of appeal---The constitutional and appellate jurisdictions are completely distinct and different in nature, scope and consequences---The constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to question the legality of laws, regulations, or Governmental acts and enforcement of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, and it is to be filed when there is an infringement of constitutional rights, which is sometimes called a writ petition or a petition for a constitutional remedy under art.199 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of a statute or executive or tribunal orders on the grounds that it infringes upon the petitioner's Constitutional rights---Conversely, an appeal is a procedural as well as substantive right which allows one party to file an appeal before a higher court to reconsider a judgment made by a lower court. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 527 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case DANIYAL KHAN VS NADEEM AHMED art. 199---Constitutional petition---Principle of laches or staleness---applicability---Petitioner impugned judgment and decree by filing the present petition after a lapse of more than two years and ten months, therefore, the same was hopelessly barred by the doctrine of laches---There is no exception to the rule that the petition is not to be entertained if there is a delay in seeking the remedy of appeal beyond the period of limitation provided by the statute---Petitioner delayed unreasonably in approaching this /High Court in a writ petition; the principle of laches or staleness applied to the present case---Notably, he application of laches depends on each case's specific circumstances and the court's discretion---The discretionary powers are to be exercised on the sound principle of justice and equity, which was missing in the present case---a court, operating in equity, concerned with fairness and justice, will decline to provide assistance of remedy to legal claims that have become stale or inactive over time---If a petitioner has not promptly asserted his legal rights and acquiesced or remained passive for a significant duration, the court may deem the claim "stale"---In such cases, the court may refuse to intervene or grant relief due to the petitioner's prolonged procrastination and lack of timely asserting his rights---This principle highlights the importance of diligence and prompt legal action to seek equitable remedies---Constitutional petition filed by the defendant / judgment-debtor, being misconceived, was dismissed in limine. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 527 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case DANIYAL KHAN VS NADEEM AHMED O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Suit for recovery decreed---Execution application also allowed---Defendant then assailing decree by way of filing constitutional petition---Maxim "ubi jus ubi remedium"---Principle of exhaustion of remedies---Scope---Term "adequate remedy"---Scope---Petitioner /defendant impugned judgment and decree passed in a summary suit under O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., 1908, against which an appeal laid to the High Court, within thirty days of the passing of a judgment---The legal maxim "ubi jus ubi remedium" (wherever there is a right, there is a remedy) establishes a fundamental legal principle, affirming that an individual has a lawful entitlement to a concomitant recourse to initiate legal proceedings in a court unless the court's jurisdiction is precluded---According to the rule of jurisdictive prudence, the courts usually show restraint with the directions to the parties first to take the recourse of an alternate and / or equally effective mechanism and framework of remedy provided, rather than to take departure to surpass or circumvent such remedy---Goal behind adopting said remedies is to constrain issues falling within the jurisdiction of an appellate court to be solely adjudicated before that forum---Any endeavor to bypass or evade these designated forums is deemed impermissible, as mandated by the provisions of Art.199(1) of the Constitution---Where an adequate forum available to the petitioner in the shape of an appeal is not exhausted, the principle of exhaustion of remedies imposes arestriction on a litigant, prohibiting him from seeking a remedy in the constitutional jurisdiction---The exceptional jurisdiction conferred by Art.199 of the Constitution is fundamentally designed to provide a specific remedy when the illegality and impropriety of an action by an Executive or other Governmental authority can be demonstrated without protracted inquiry---The term "adequate remedy" denotes a remedy that is effective, attainable, accessible, advantageous, and expeditious---Petitioner had an effective remedy for filing an appeal, but he missed the bus without any reasonable and lawful excuse---The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies dictates that a litigant must not pursue a remedy in a different court or jurisdiction until the remedy prescribed by law has been fully exhausted---The writ jurisdiction of the High Court should not serve as the exclusive recourse or remedy for rectifying the wrongs, distress, and sufferings endured by a party, especially when an equally efficacious, alternative and adequate remedy is available under the law---Said principle is grounded in the notion that the litigant should not be inclined to bypass or disregard the provisions enshrined in the pertinent statute, which delineates specific procedures for challenging the impugned action---Proceedings under Art.199 of the Constitution are oriented towards enforcing a right rather than establishing a legal right---Therefore, the right asserted by the petitioner must not only be clear and complete but straightforward and there must be an actual infringement of that right---The aims and objectives of Art.199 of the Constitution are to promote justice, safeguard rights, rectify any injustice or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and correct procedural illegality or irregularity that might have adversely affected a case---Petitioner failed to bring his case within the said criteria---Constitutional petition filed by the defendant / judgment-debtor, being misconceived, was dismissed in limine.

DANIYAL KHAN vs NADEEM AHMED art — 2026 CLC 527 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC