Lahore High Court: In a petition challenging the dismissal of objections against the execution of orders passed by the Special Court under the Pakistan Overseas Pakistanis Property Act, 2024 (the Act), Jawad Hassan, J., stated that a party cannot defeat or obstruct the implementation of judicial orders that have already attained finality by subsequently obtaining an ex parte decree in collateral proceedings, particularly when the operation of such decree stands suspended. The Court further held that repeated proceedings aimed at frustrating the execution of final orders amount to an abuse of the process of law and do not warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner filed an ejectment petition against Respondent 2 on account of an alleged sale deed, which was further accepted by the Special Judge, Rent Court vide order dated 9-7-2025. Respondent 1 claiming himself to be the lawful owner of the property, filed an application which challenged the aforesaid order. Subsequently, the said order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to hand over the property to him.
Subsequently, in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Special Court passed a further order directing the petitioner to deliver possession of the property to the attorney of Respondent 1. The petitioner again challenged the said order, which was later dismissed as withdrawn.
Thereafter, the petitioner obtained an ex parte judgment and decree from the Civil Court, Rawalpindi and, filed objections before the Special Court to resist the execution of the earlier orders regarding delivery of possession of the disputed property. The said objection petition was dismissed by the Special Court vide the impugned order, against which the petitioner has filed the present constitutional petition.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court stated that protection of rights and interests of Overseas Pakistanis has remained a matter of public importance, considering their valuable contribution to the national economy and the practical difficulties they face in pursuing litigation while residing abroad. Delay in adjudication of such matters often results in undue hardship and prejudice to their legal rights. Thus, to protect their rights, the Punjab Government had established Special Courts for adjudication of petition in respect of immovable properties of overseas Pakistanis.
The Court stated that the Act lays down a comprehensive framework to protect the property rights of overseas Pakistanis, and it prescribes a clear procedure for filing petitions, establishes mechanisms for adjudication and ensures speedy disposal of disputes. The Court referred to Section 9 of the Act and stated that it reflects the legislature’s intent to ensure expeditious justice for Overseas Pakistanis. It seeks to protect Overseas Pakistanis from prolonged litigation, while simultaneously safeguarding the respondent’s rights by linking delays to responsibility. Similarly, the Court examined Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act, and concluded that these provisions provide a comprehensive mechanism for the expeditious adjudication, enforcement and protection of the rights of Overseas Pakistanis in property disputes.
The Court stated that in the present case, Respondent 1 had purchased the disputed property through a registered sale deed, whereas the petitioner later claimed rights in the same property on the basis of an allotment letter, the validity of which had already been challenged by Respondent 1 through civil proceedings. The Court observed that various proceedings regarding the same property were pending before different forums and, therefore, the matter was rightly transferred to the Special Court to ensure a consistent adjudication of the dispute.
The Court further held that the petitioner could not rely upon the ex parte judgment to resist the implementation of the orders already passed by the Special Court. The orders directing restoration of possession had already been challenged by the petitioner and had either been dismissed or withdrawn, thereby attaining finality. Moreover, the ex parte decree had subsequently been suspended by the competent Civil Court, depriving the petitioner of any legal benefit arising therefrom.
The Court observed that the petitioner, through successive proceedings before different forums, had attempted to frustrate the implementation of orders that had already attained finality. Such conduct amounted to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, since no illegality, jurisdictional defect, or material irregularity was found in the impugned order, the Court declined to interfere in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction and upheld the order passed by the Special Court.
[Javed Masih v. Amar Javed, Writ Petition No. 2345 of 2026, decided on 24-06-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Syed Qalb-i-Hassan, ASC with Barrister Syed Saim Hassan, Advocate for Petitioner. Barrister Talha Ilyas Sheikh, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Muhammad Irshad, Assistant Advocate General.
