2023 S C M R 61
Supreme Court Rules , 1980 ---
---- O . XXVIII , R. A ( 3 ) --- Public institution --- Frivolous litigation --- Wasting time of Court --- Special costs imposed --- Non - transferable plot allotted for use as a clinic transferred outside of family members of original allottee --- Held , that Capital Development Authority ( CDA ) allowed the transfer of the disputed plot to non - family members , from time to time and only raised a dispute with reference to the transfer in favour of respondent --- Present case was a classic example of a litigant wasting the time of the Supreme Court by filing frivolous litigation given that the present matter already stood decided by the High Court --- Furthermore , the dispute , if any , raised by the CDA was based on their own conduct as the record shows that they had themselves transferred the disputed plot outside the family members of original allottee repeatedly and yet chose to dispute the transfer in favour of respondent notwithstanding the earlier transfers made in favour of different transferees --- Capital Development Authority had taken no action against any officer , nor raised the present issue before their own governing hody to highlight the fact that their own documents and policy were not being followed by their officers --- Instead , they chose to litigate the matter and burdened the courts with litigation which did not raise a question of law or fact in good faith --- Supreme Court imposed special costs of Rs.500,000 / - on the CDA , which was to be deposited in any approved charity --- Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused .
Supreme Court Rules , 1980 ---
---- O . XXVIII , R. A ( 3 ) --- Public institution --- Frivolous litigation --- Wasting time of Court --- Special costs imposed --- Non - transferable plot allotted for use as a clinic transferred outside of family members of original allottee --- Held , that Capital Development Authority ( CDA ) allowed the transfer of the disputed plot to non - family members , from time to time and only raised a dispute with reference to the transfer in favour of respondent --- Present case was a classic example of a litigant wasting the time of the Supreme Court by filing frivolous litigation given that the present matter already stood decided by the High Court --- Furthermore , the dispute , if any , raised by the CDA was based on their own conduct as the record shows that they had themselves transferred the disputed plot outside the family members of original allottee repeatedly and yet chose to dispute the transfer in favour of respondent notwithstanding the earlier transfers made in favour of different transferees --- Capital Development Authority had taken no action against any officer , nor raised the present issue before their own governing hody to highlight the fact that their own documents and policy were not being followed by their officers --- Instead , they chose to litigate the matter and burdened the courts with litigation which did not raise a question of law or fact in good faith --- Supreme Court imposed special costs of Rs.500,000 / - on the CDA , which was to be deposited in any approved charity --- Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused .
Supreme Court Rules , 1980 --- ---- O . XXVIII , R. A ( 3 ) --- Constitution of Pakistan , Arts . 9 & 37 ( d ) --- Frivolous litigation --- Wasting time of Court --- Special costs --- Supreme Court can impose costs , to curb frivolous litigation , for prolonging the agony of the respondents and wasting the time of the Supreme Court which could be spent in resolving legitimate disputes --- Such frivolous litigation overburdens the Supreme Court with vexatious cases thereby delaying and thus denying the rightful claim of access to justice guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution --- Such frivolous litigation also impairs expeditious justice and offends Article 37 ( d ) of the Principles of Policy under the Constitution --- Court time can be well spent on handling genuine cases as opposed to pursuing cases which are vexatious and meritless on their face and which have already been decided between the parties .
0 Comments