PESHAWAR: A Peshawar High Court bench on Tuesday sought a reply from the provincial government within a week on a petition against the recent amendments to the colonial-era Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), 1908.

Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth and Justice Abdul Shakoor issued notice to the provincial government though its chief secretary and fixed Jan 14 for the next hearing into the petition filed by advocate Mohammad Farooq Afridi.

The petitioner requested the court to declare unconstitutional and against the principal of natural justice the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2019, through which drastic changes were made in the CCP.

These amendments have triggered lawyer protests. Last month, a strike was observed for three consecutive days.

On the call of the KP Bar Council, a strike will be observed today (Wednesday) as well.

Counsel for petitioner say CCP amendments futile exercise sans changes to Civil Court Ordinance

The respondents in the petition are the KP government through chief secretary, secretaries of establishment and law departments, principal secretary to the chief minister, and secretary of the KP Assembly.

Abdul Lateef Afridi, Qazi Jawad Ahsanullah and other lawyers appeared for the petitioner and contended that a new section, 26-C, had been inserted in the CCP and if that provision was implemented, it would place extra burden on litigants and will cause complications.

They said Section 26-C, which dealt with “framing of issues, filing of list of witnesses and recording of evidence,” was absolutely unreasonable, illogical and against the basic principle of justice.

The lawyers said Section 26-C prescribed mode of recording evidence by a commission, which was in derogation and in conflict with basic principles of law.

They said there were several questions regarding the said section, including whether the cost for appointing a commission for recording of evidence shall be paid by the government or litigants; whether the cost, if incur on the parties, will not be a heavy burden over poor litigants; whether the commission will move city to city and province to province, in case the witnesses are multiple and reside in different cities; whether the counsel for the respective parties shall be accompanied by the commission, and whether Section 26-C of the new amended Act, 2019, is not in conflict with Article 10-A of the Constitution guaranteeing fair trial.

The lawyers said Section 26-C of the impugned Act was a classical example of immature provincial legislation as from the practice’s viewpoint, neither a retired judge nor a well- versed and experienced advocate would join the commission for recording evidence while going in far-flung areas.

They said without amending the Civil Court Ordinance, 1962, the amendments made to the CCP was a futile exercise.

The lawyers said the lawyers had proposed certain amendments to the government but the government had turned a deaf ear to their requests.

They requested the court to grant them interim relief and till final disposal of the writ petition the operation of the impugned Act may be suspended or in alternate , section 26-C of the said Act may be suspended.

The bench observed that such like petitions were also filed before the PHC Abbottabad Circuit Bench and on next date the lawyers should come fully prepared so that these cases could be decided at the earliest.

Published in Dawn, January 8th, 2020