Published here: http://pakobserver.net/201303/16/detailnews.asp?id=200369
Saturday, March 16, 2013 - Some years ago I had pointed out in these very pages that the court’s record and orders were being traded in at least one of the banking courts in Karachi and that no action had been taken against the culprits so far despite repeated complaints on record. One such instance is of a final order that was stolen in 2000 and could not be retrieved or issued by the concerned court, which, years later, mysteriously could only supply a certified copy of the same bearing the current date against the real date on which certified copies of the said missing order were applied for. After a series of complaints were made to the learned judge, what he did was have, instead, a copy supplied thereof with the current dates by which time the limitation had naturally expired, barring the defendant from his right to appeal.
While the said missing order was kept in abeyance, the court proceeded with the case by issuing the sale certificate to the plaintiff/auction purchaser against which serious objections were at once lodged by the defendant but to no avail as the learned judge was not inclined to listen to the defendant having self-admittedly said that he had been “pressurized” by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and, in turn, “instructed” by some senior judge to dispose of the case on the deadline given. Obviously, that too was to be done in favour of one of the biggest bank defaulters whose name already happens to be with the Supreme Court (SC). By favouring them in the case, the aim was to shun and offload the third party from legal interruption with the obvious intention of squeezing out a very substantial ‘reward’ that NAB, as a rule, is said to charge banks on such recoveries or from plea bargains.
With the passing of the limitation due to failure of the banking court to issue an appropriately dated and valid copy of the stolen order, the appellate court was not inclined to entertain the appeal, thus depriving the defendant of his fair right to justice. This being so, will the honourable SC recall the matter and see why action was not taken against that banking court for alienating the final order and not supplying it to the defendant on the date it was applied for until this day? Needless to say, the defendant cannot be held liable for the delay in issuing an order by the court as also envisaged in the Limitation Act but, unfortunately, the courts rarely shift from the conventional practice of knocking out even merited cases on forced technical grounds, thereby unconsciously condemning such defendants to being unheard. In doing so, they unintentionally defeat the service of justice to the already aggrieved party. May I request the honourable SC to check this ancient trend in the courts as the same is outrightly not what the SC aspires for?
—Karachi
Saturday, March 16, 2013 - Some years ago I had pointed out in these very pages that the court’s record and orders were being traded in at least one of the banking courts in Karachi and that no action had been taken against the culprits so far despite repeated complaints on record. One such instance is of a final order that was stolen in 2000 and could not be retrieved or issued by the concerned court, which, years later, mysteriously could only supply a certified copy of the same bearing the current date against the real date on which certified copies of the said missing order were applied for. After a series of complaints were made to the learned judge, what he did was have, instead, a copy supplied thereof with the current dates by which time the limitation had naturally expired, barring the defendant from his right to appeal.
While the said missing order was kept in abeyance, the court proceeded with the case by issuing the sale certificate to the plaintiff/auction purchaser against which serious objections were at once lodged by the defendant but to no avail as the learned judge was not inclined to listen to the defendant having self-admittedly said that he had been “pressurized” by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and, in turn, “instructed” by some senior judge to dispose of the case on the deadline given. Obviously, that too was to be done in favour of one of the biggest bank defaulters whose name already happens to be with the Supreme Court (SC). By favouring them in the case, the aim was to shun and offload the third party from legal interruption with the obvious intention of squeezing out a very substantial ‘reward’ that NAB, as a rule, is said to charge banks on such recoveries or from plea bargains.
With the passing of the limitation due to failure of the banking court to issue an appropriately dated and valid copy of the stolen order, the appellate court was not inclined to entertain the appeal, thus depriving the defendant of his fair right to justice. This being so, will the honourable SC recall the matter and see why action was not taken against that banking court for alienating the final order and not supplying it to the defendant on the date it was applied for until this day? Needless to say, the defendant cannot be held liable for the delay in issuing an order by the court as also envisaged in the Limitation Act but, unfortunately, the courts rarely shift from the conventional practice of knocking out even merited cases on forced technical grounds, thereby unconsciously condemning such defendants to being unheard. In doing so, they unintentionally defeat the service of justice to the already aggrieved party. May I request the honourable SC to check this ancient trend in the courts as the same is outrightly not what the SC aspires for?
—Karachi
No comments:
Post a Comment