ISLAMABAD: In a rare and scathing judicial rebuke, a division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has effectively charge-sheeted a senior sessions judge over a poorly reasoned judgement, referring the matter to the Member Inspection Team (MIT) for possible disciplinary proceedings.

The development comes amid growing concerns raised by the legal fraternity in the federal capital regarding alleged corruption and accountability in the lower judiciary.

The division bench, comprising Justice Mohammad Azam Khan and Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, expressed serious concern over the manner in which Sessions Judge (East) Mohammad Yar Gondal handled an execution petition filed by M/s Allied Bank Limited.

The court observed that the judge had assumed jurisdiction over a matter that had already attained finality and passed an order affecting substantive rights flowing from a decree. According to the bench, this demonstrated a “clear lack of due judicial application of mind to fundamental procedural safeguards.”

The criticism of the executing court was unusually severe. In its judgement, the bench held that the impugned order suffered from a “fundamental jurisdictional defect.” It noted that the executing court failed to appreciate the meaning of “obligation” under Section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and disregarded the legal consequences of default by substituting its own method of calculation in place of one mandated by statute and affirmed by the decree.

“Such an exercise is clearly impermissible in law and cannot be sustained in appellate scrutiny,” the bench observed.

The judges said the executing court’s approach reflected more than a technical error and amounted to a fundamental misunderstanding of procedural finality and the limits of jurisdiction. According to the judgement, the court had effectively reopened and re-engineered the decree under the guise of execution, an exercise described as “impermissible in law.”

The bench further held that the executing court introduced a qualification that neither flowed from the judgement nor was supported by the statutory scheme governing execution proceedings.

Clarifying the legal position, the judges observed that an “obligation” under the ordinance is fixed at the moment default occurs and is not recalibrated by subsequent payments. By directing recalculation of the cost of funds on a reduced principal amount, the executing court effectively replaced the basis of computation determined by the decree with a methodology of its own creation.

“The role of the Executing Court is not to reassess the correctness of the decree or to introduce a new basis of computation, but to ensure faithful execution of its terms,” the judgement stated.

The bench held that assuming jurisdiction over a matter that had ceased to exist in the eyes of law and passing an order affecting substantive rights demonstrated a serious failure to observe procedural safeguards. Such an approach, it warned, could not be lightly condoned because it struck at the foundations of procedural certainty and judicial regularity.

The judges observed that allowing such lapses to remain unchecked would undermine settled procedural norms, weaken the authority of court orders and create uncertainty in the enforcement of rights, particularly in execution proceedings involving final decrees.

Referring the matter to the MIT for scrutiny and onward placement before the chief justice for appropriate action, the bench concluded that the lapse was “not to be treated as a mere error of appreciation, but as a matter requiring serious institutional attention, as it goes to the root of judicial discipline and the proper exercise of jurisdiction.”

The order coincides with recent demands by Islamabad’s legal community for judicial reforms and accountability. At a joint press conference, representatives of the Pakistan Bar Council, Islamabad Bar Council, Islamabad High Court Bar Association and Islamabad District Bar Association alleged that cases in the district judiciary were being decided on a “done basis” and that judicial officers were approached for favourable judgements even before cases were filed.

Notably, the judges who issued the order against Judge Gondal also are the inspection judges for the Sessions Divisions East and West and oversee the sessions courts affairs. Judge Gondal was brought to Islamabad following changes in the IHC administration in February last year after the change of command in the IHC.

Published in Dawn, June 17th, 2026