HCs can’t re-examine facts in family matters: SC

Defining the scope of the constitutional jurisdiction of high courts while hearing petitions against appellate decisions, particularly in family cases, the top court has noted that high courts lack the jurisdiction to re-examine or reconsider the facts of a case already decided by lower courts

“The objective of Article 199 of the Constitution is to foster justice, protect rights and correct any wrongs, for which, it empowers the high court to rectify wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower courts and address procedural illegality or irregularity that may have prejudiced a case.

“However, it is emphasized that the high court, in its capacity under Article 199, lacks the jurisdiction to re-examine or reconsider the facts of a case already decided by lower courts,” said a six-page written order authored by Supreme Court judge Ayesha Malik.

Justice Ayesha was leading a division bench also comprising Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi that heard a family matter in which the Peshawar High Court (PHC) had given findings on facts.

The court noted that if the high court continues to entertain constitutional petitions against appellate court orders under Article 199 of the Constitution, floodgates to appellate litigation will open.

"The right to appeal is a statutory creation, either provided or not provided by the legislature; if the law intended to provide for two opportunities of appeal, it would have explicitly done so.

“In the absence of a second appeal, the decision of the appellate court is considered final on the facts and it is not for the high court to offer another opportunity of hearing, especially in family cases where the legislature’s intent to not prolong the dispute is clear.

“The purpose of this approach is to ensure efficient and expeditious resolution of legal disputes," it said.

The verdict noted that closure of litigation is essential for a fair and efficient legal system, and the courts should not unwarrantedly make room for litigants to abuse the process of law.

"Once a matter has been adjudicated upon on fact by the trial and the appellate courts, constitutional courts should not exceed their powers by re-evaluating the facts or substituting the appellate court's opinion with their own.

“The acceptance of finality of the appellate court’s findings is essential for achieving closure in legal proceedings conclusively resolving disputes, preventing unnecessary litigation, and upholding the legislature's intent to provide a definitive resolution through existing appeal mechanisms," it added.

The court said in the present case, the petitioner pursued his case through the family court and its appeal in the district court and then also invoked the high court’s constitutional jurisdiction to reargue his case amounting to a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction whereby the high court upheld the factual findings of appellate court after making its own assessments on the same.

"Allowing a re-argument of the case constituted to arguing a second appeal which should not have been entertained regardless of the outcome of the case," it added.

The court also referred to its earlier decision in which it was held that while some cases justify interference by the high court most do not. Thus, it said, the legal position is that the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for a revision or an appeal.

“This means that the high court in constitutional jurisdiction cannot reappraise the evidence and decide the case [based] on its facts. Interference is on limited grounds as an exception and not the rule,” it said.