Blocking of CNIC by Executing Court for Non-Appearance of Judgment Debtor — Scope of Order XXI Rule 117 CPC
 |
| Latest decision on Id card block |
2025 CLC 1712 —
عملدرآمدی عدالت کا اختیار CNIC بلاکنگ
تعارف
پشاور ہائیکورٹ کا فیصلہ 2025 CLC 1712 ایک اہم نظیر ہے جس میں یہ سوال زیرِ بحث آیا کہ آیا عملدرآمدی عدالت کو عدمِ پیشی کی صورت میں شناختی کارڈ (CNIC) بلاک کرنے کا اختیار حاصل ہے یا نہیں۔ عدالت نے واضح قانونی اصول طے کرتے ہوئے آئینی درخواست کو خارج کر دیا۔
---
کیس کا پس منظر
درخواست گزار کے خلاف رقم کی وصولی کا دعویٰ دائر ہوا جو ڈگری ہو گیا۔ ڈگری کے بعد جب معاملہ عملدرآمد میں آیا تو درخواست گزار مسلسل عدالت میں پیشی سے گریز کرتا رہا۔ اس رویے کے پیشِ نظر عملدرآمدی عدالت نے Order XXI Rule 117 CPC کے تحت اس کا CNIC بلاک کرنے کا حکم جاری کیا۔
درخواست گزار نے عملدرآمدی عدالت سے رجوع کرنے کے بجائے براہِ راست پشاور ہائیکورٹ میں آئینی درخواست دائر کر دی اور مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ شناختی کارڈ بلاک کرنے کا اختیار صرف NADRA Ordinance, 2000 کے تحت نادرا کو حاصل ہے۔
---
قانونی سوالات
1. کیا عملدرآمدی عدالت کو CNIC بلاک کرنے کا اختیار حاصل ہے؟
2. کیا متبادل فورم موجود ہونے کے باوجود آئینی درخواست قابلِ سماعت ہے؟
3. کیا درخواست گزار کے طرزِ عمل کا آئینی دائرہ اختیار میں اثر پڑتا ہے؟
---
عدالت کا تجزیہ
ہائیکورٹ نے ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لیتے ہوئے قرار دیا کہ خیبر پختونخوا میں Order XXI CPC میں Rule 117 شامل کیا جا چکا ہے، جس کے تحت ججمنٹ ڈیٹر کو پیشی یا عملدرآمد مکمل کرانے کے لیے CNIC بلاک کرنا ایک جائز طریقہ ہے۔ اس لیے عملدرآمدی عدالت کا حکم بلا اختیار یا غیر قانونی نہیں تھا۔
اہم نکات (Aham Nuqaat):
1️⃣ عملدرآمدی عدالت کا اختیار
عملدرآمدی عدالت کو Order XXI Rule 117 CPC کے تحت فیصلہ شدہ ڈگری پر عمل کرانے کے لیے شناختی کارڈ (CNIC) بلاک کرنے کا اختیار حاصل ہے۔
2️⃣ NADRA آرڈیننس کا اطلاق محدود
NADRA Ordinance, 2000 کی دفعہ 18 صرف نادرا کے انتظامی اختیارات سے متعلق ہے، یہ عدالتی اختیار کو ختم نہیں کرتی۔
3️⃣ درخواست گزار کا طرزِ عمل
درخواست گزار مسلسل عدالت میں پیشی سے گریز کرتا رہا، جو اس کے خلاف ایک منفی عامل (negative conduct) بنا۔
4️⃣ آرٹیکل 5 کی خلاف ورزی
عدالت میں پیش ہونا شہری کی آئینی ذمہ داری ہے؛ اس سے انکار آئین کے آرٹیکل 5 کے منافی ہے۔
5️⃣ صاف ہاتھوں کا اصول (Clean Hands Doctrine)
جو فریق خود قانون کی خلاف ورزی کرے، وہ آئینی ریلیف کا مستحق نہیں۔
6️⃣ رِٹ درخواست کی عدمِ سماعت
جب متبادل فورم (عملدرآمدی عدالت) موجود ہو اور اس سے رجوع نہ کیا جائے تو رِٹ قابلِ سماعت نہیں رہتی۔
7️⃣ PLD 2022 Lahore 756 قابلِ اطلاق نہیں
خیبر پختونخوا میں قانونی ترامیم کے بعد یہ فیصلہ لاگو نہیں ہوتا۔
8️⃣ حتمی نتیجہ
آئینی درخواست ابتدائی مرحلے پر خارج (Dismissed in limine) کر دی گئی اور CNIC بلاک کرنے کا حکم برقرار رہا۔
Must read judgement
2025 C L. C 1712
[Peshawar]
Before Ishtiaq Ibrahim, CJ and Wiqar Ahmad, J
HABIB SULTAN ---Petitioner
Versus
MUHAMMAD SARTAJ and others-Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5204-P of 2024, decided on 7th November, 2024.
(a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000)---
S. 18-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI-Computerized National Identity Card, blocking of Jurisdiction of Executing Court-Scope-Executing Court had issued orders for blocking CNIC of the petitioner, who had approached High Court without approaching the Executing Court for unblocking of his CNIC-Order of Executing Court was not without authority in view of O.XXI, C.PC-Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
PLD 2022 Lah. 756 Distinguished.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan---
Executing before be ExArts &199 Constitutional petition Maintainability Conduce the petitioner, considering of an appearance derarte conduct of the petitioner-Petitioner was avoiding his appearance before the Executing Court, which was his inviolable obligation under Art. 5 of the Constitution, thus, his approach before the High Court by filing writ petition could not be accepted to be in good faith Petitioner failed to make out a case for interference of High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction-Constitutional Petition was dismissed in limine..
Muhammad Arif v. Uzma Afzal and others 2011 SCMR 374; Dr. Azim Ur Rehman Khan MEO v. Government of Sindh and another 2004 SCMR 1299 and Aziz ur Rehman Ch v. M. Nasiruddin and others PLD 1965 SC 236 rel.
Malik Anwar Ul Haq for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7th November, 2024.
JUDGMENT
WIQAR AHMAD, J. Petitioner namely, Habib Sultan son of Sultan Mehmood has filed instant constitutional petition against blocking of his Computerized National Identity Card ("CNIC") through orders of learned Executing court. It is contended in the writ perition that respondent No.1 had filed a suit for recovery of certain amount against petitioner before Court of Senior Civil judge, Nowshera on 30.9.2022. Said suit had been decreed and subsequently an execution petition has been filed in the Executing Court Le. learned Civil Judge-IX, Nowshera and was pending there when learned executing Court issued order for blocking of CNIC of petitioner
on 19.10.2023. of 2. It is case of the petitioner before this Court that section 18 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000 was giving ing powers of cancelling or confiscation of Identity Cards to NADRA authorities and learned executing Court was not having jurisdiction to order blocka Identity Card. Learned counsel representing petitioner raised similar arguments before this court and also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Lahore High Court reported as PLD 2022 Lahore 756.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of record reveal that it is not denied that a competent court of law ie. Executing Court had issued orders for blocking CNIC of the petitioner on 19.10.2023. Petitioner has approached this Court without approaching the executing Court for unblocking of his CNIC. The order of learned executing Court was not without lawful authority as by now rule 117 has been added to Order XXI Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which reads as follow:
"117. The modes of compelling the judgment debtor for his attendance or for completing the execution proceedings may include
blockage of his Computerized National Identity Card."
5. Since learned executing Court was having lawful authority for blocking CNIC therefore, it was not a case of want of lawful authority. Petitioner was avoiding his appearance before executing court as is evident from the order sheets, copies of some of which have also been annexed with instant writ petition. In such circumstances learned executing court has rightly resorted to blocking CNIC of the petitioner.
6. Kesirles, High Court while entertaining writ petition may also take into consideration conduct of a petitioner. As stated earlier petitioner was avoiding his appearance before the executing Court which was his inviolable obligation in accordance with Article 5 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In such circumstances his approach before the High Court by filing instant writ petition cannot be accepted to be in good faith. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while giving its judgment in case of Muhammad. Arif v. Uzma Afzal and others reported as 2011 SCMR 374 has also inter alia held that whoever came to the High Court for seeking a relief in its constitutional jurisdiction, had to satisfy conscious of the court that he was having clean hands. Relevant observations recorded in said judgment are also reproduced hereunder for ready reference;
7. There is no cavil to the proposition that "conduct of petitioner can be taken into consideration in allowing or disallowing equitable relief in constitutional jurisdiction. The principle that the Court should lean in favour of adjudication of causes on merit, appears to be available for invocation only when the person relying on it himself comes to the Court with clean hands and equitable considerations also lie in his favour. High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is bound to proceed on maxim" he who seeks equity must do equity". Continual jurisdiction is an equitable jurisdiction. Whoever comes to High Court to seek relief has to satisfy the conscience of the court that he was clean hands. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in aid of injustice. The High Court will not grant relief under this Article when the petitioner does not come to the court with clean hands. He may claim relief only when he himself is not violating provisions ovisions of law, especially of the law aw under which he is claiming entitlement."
Further reliance in this respect may he placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered in the case of Dr. Azim Ur Rehman Khan MEO v. Government of Sindh and another reported as 2004 SCMR 1299 and the case of Aziz ur Rehman Ch. v. M. Nasiruddin and others reported as PLD 1965 SC 236.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner was heard at length but he failed to make out a case for interference of this court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Judgement of Hon'ble Lahore High referred to above was not applicable in the case in hand, for reasons that rules have been amended in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and powers of learned executing court to block CNIC have heen reserved for executing Court
8. In such circumstances instant writ petition was found lacking substance and same is dismissed in limine.
SA/77/P
Petition dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment