LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that an order to a subordinate court to decide a matter within a particular time frame is not mandatory but usually directory in nature and such direction should be followed as far as possible, keeping in view the interest of justice.

“The strict adherence to the direction given by superior courts to decide the matter in a particular time frame should not stand in way of the court to do justice in the matter by decision of the same in undue haste resulting in miscarriage of justice,” says the LHC verdict.

The ruling by a two-judge LHC bench comprising Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh and Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabbir came on an appeal of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) challenging a decision of a banking court wherein a loan recovery suit was dismissed as a consequence of closure of appellant’s (bank) right to lead evidence.

The litigation about the suit went to the LHC on the pretext that the banking court “did not provide reasonable opportunity” to the bank to produce evidence and closed its right to produce the evidence under an impression that the high court had issued the direction to dispose of the case within 10 days.

Authored by Justice Shabbir, the verdict observes that although the banking court was bound by the LHC direction, it does not mean the matter is to be decided without giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in their case. It notes that the law favours that a matter should be decided on merits rather than on technicalities.

It holds that the banking court decided the matter in an “undue haste” in order to comply with the LHC direction to finalise the matter and sufficient opportunities were not provided to the appellant (bank) to produce its evidence, which was required for just decision of the matter and would have helped the court reach a proper conclusion of the same.

The ruling says the impugned order closing the appellant’s right to produce evidence does not appear to be based on proper exercise of jurisdiction based on thorough appreciation of record available before the court and is not sustainable.

It sets aside the impugned order of closing appellant’s right of evidence and the subsequent dismissal of the loan recovery suit and remanded the matter to the banking court with the direction to provide another opportunity to the bank to produce evidence.

The respondents shall also be provided an opportunity to produce their evidence and the matter shall be decided afresh on merit.

Published in Dawn, June 22nd, 2022