The recent order issued by the Court of Senior Civil Judge Karachi (Central), XI in Case No. 521 of 2018 has raised serious concerns, calling for close examination by both the superior judiciary and Sharia scholars. The ruling’s blatant disregard for fundamental principles of justice is contributing to the erosion of judicial integrity in Pakistan.
Before delving into the specifics of the case, it is essential to highlight a disturbing trend in Pakistan’s lower courts: a consistent disregard for established judicial norms. This negligence is a primary reason why many cases are dismissed by the superior courts. However, this trend raises a critical question: What about those who are denied justice at the lower court level and cannot afford to file appeals before superior courts due to the exorbitant fees charged by lawyers?
Returning to Case 521 of 2018, the case was filed by a practicing female lawyer seeking a share of an immovable property owned by her deceased mother, as the title of the property was in her mother’s name. A key defendant in the case, the plaintiff’s brother, claimed that the property was a Benami purchase—bought in their mother’s name by him, as she was a housewife with no independent source of income. He further informed the court that all the essential documents proving the Benami nature of the property were in the possession of another defendant, their sister, who had allegedly removed these documents from the house fraudulently. Witnesses appearing on behalf of the plaintiff confirmed the defendant’s claim. Additionally, the defendant pointed out that their father had two wives and several children, adding complexity to the case.
In response, the plaintiff did not dispute the fact that her mother was a housewife. Instead, she claimed that the funds used to purchase the property were derived from her father’s gratuity, pension, and salary, which her mother used after his death. Meanwhile, a step-sister of the plaintiff intervened, arguing that since the property was purchased with their father’s funds, all of his children should be entitled to a share. Witnesses supporting the plaintiff also confirmed the step-sister’s claim.
The case presented before the sitting judge was clear-cut. The title of the property was in the name of the plaintiff’s mother, a housewife with no personal income. The funds used for the purchase were either from the father’s money or, as claimed by the defendant, involved in a Benami transaction. Despite the clarity, the judgment delivered in May 2024 by the honorable judge was shockingly biased. The judge completely disregarded all the crucial facts and ordered that the shares of the property be distributed only among the children of the deceased mother.
What is particularly troubling about this judgment is that the honorable judge, in an apparent attempt to make the ruling favorable for the plaintiff, deliberately ignored the facts related to the intervener and the allegedly stolen documents. This raises fundamental questions about the integrity of the judgment. Whose money was actually used to purchase the property? It is evident that the plaintiff’s suit was not based on factual grounds, and she deliberately concealed the truth. The honorable judge should have taken notice of this. Unfortunately, it appears that the judge was either under undue influence or simply incompetent in understanding the case.
Sharia scholars unanimously agree that if the money used for purchasing the property came from the father, it should be distributed among all of his wives and children according to Sharia law. The defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff, has since written to the registrars of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Sindh High Court, urging them to take notice of this judgment in the broader public interest.
In his application to the higher courts, the defendant wrote: “Judgments being rendered by lower courts that lack merit have the potential to undermine people’s confidence in the judicial system. Many individuals find themselves unable to appeal against these judgments due to financial constraints and difficulties in obtaining justice.”
The defendant appealed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court, raising several critical questions about the judgment:
1. Why did the court ignore the intervener after the plaintiff admitted to the gratuity amount?
2. Why did the court overlook the plaintiff’s misstatements about the source of income used for the property purchase?
3. Why did the court refuse to order the production of original documents, despite witnesses confirming their possession by another respondent?
It is an established fact that the deceased mother was a housewife with no resources to purchase immovable property. Therefore, issuing an order based solely on the property’s title raises significant doubts about the judgment passed by the honorable court.
The current situation regarding this case is that while the defendant has appealed to the superior court, the intervener has been unable to challenge the judgment due to financial constraints. This case highlights the broader issue of access to justice in Pakistan, where financial limitations often prevent individuals from seeking redress in higher courts. The repercussions of such unethical judicial practices are profound, threatening the very foundation of Pakistan’s justice system. The superior judiciary must urgently address these concerns to restore public confidence in the legal system and ensure that justice is truly served.
