ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that frivolous, vexatious and speculative litigation unduly burden courts giving an artificial rise to pendency of cases and in turn clogs the justice system thus delaying the resolution of genuine disputes.

“Such litigation is required to be rooted out of the system and one of the ways to curb such practice of instituting frivolous and vexatious cases is by imposing costs under Order 28 Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 (rules),” observed Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah in a judgement he wrote.

The apex court dismissed a petition with the cost of Rs100,000 which should be deposited by the petitioner in the trial court within three months.

In case of failure to deposit the cost within the prescribed time, the amount will be recovered from the petitioner as a money decree with 10 per cent monthly increase, the judgement said.

Justice Shah was heading a three-judge Supreme Court bench, also consisting of Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Ayesha A. Malik that had taken up an appeal of Qazi Naveedul Islam against the Oct 6, 2020, Lahore High Court (LHC) rejection of his plea.

The controversy revolved around a succession certificate for an amount of Rs32,185 left by his deceased father in a bank account, which was allowed by the trial court on Dec 3, 2009.

The judgement explained that to advance a personal grudge the petitioner by repeatedly filing vexatious and frivolous claims not only wasted precious time of these courts but also caused anguish and pain to the other party.

The judgement said the spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such as to make every litigant think twice before putting forth a vexatious claim or defence before the court.

These costs can be over and above the nominal costs which include costs of the time spent by the successful party, transportation and lodging, if any, or any other incidental cost, besides the amount of the court fee, process fee and lawyer’s fee, Justice Shah observed.

The imposition of costs in such cases meets the requirement of fair trial under Article 10A of the constitution.

It also incentivises the litigants to adopt alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes and arrive at a settlement rather than rushing to courts, the judgment said, adding the costs lay the foundation for expeditious justice and promote a smart legal system that enhances access to justice by entertaining genuine claims.

The purpose of awarding costs is to compensate the successful party for the expenses incurred to which he has been subjected and purge the legal system of frivolous, vexatious and speculative claims and defences.

Published in Dawn, January 27th, 2023