The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that the power to remand cases to subordinate courts for a fresh hearing is an exceptional and corrective jurisdiction that cannot be exercised routinely. The Court emphasized that appellate courts are duty-bound to decide disputes themselves when the record is complete, rather than subjecting litigants to unnecessary and prolonged litigation.
Case Background
A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan converted a petition filed by Muhammad Zubair into an appeal and allowed it in a family dispute involving khula, dower (haq mehr), gold jewellery, and maintenance of children. The Court held that remand may be ordered only where a significant legal or factual issue has been completely overlooked, essential evidence has not been considered, or a party has been denied a fair opportunity of hearing. However, the power of remand cannot be used to prolong litigation, reopen concluded matters, or provide a party with a second opportunity to remedy weaknesses in its case.
Family Court Proceedings
According to the case record, Raheela Gul and her daughters filed a suit in 2017 before a Family Court in Dera Ismail Khan seeking khula, recovery of dower, gold jewellery, maintenance for the children, and a share in a residential house. The Family Court granted a decree for khula and ordered payment of the value of one-fourth share of the house, five tolas of gold, and monthly maintenance for the children. Subsequently, the appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh hearing. However, the Dera Ismail Khan Bench of the Peshawar High Court set aside the remand order and restored the Family Court's judgment.
Supreme Court Observations
The Supreme Court observed that the Family Court had framed appropriate issues in light of the parties' pleadings, recorded evidence, and delivered a detailed judgment. The record did not indicate that any material issue had remained unaddressed or that either party had been prevented from producing evidence. The Court further noted that the husband had appeared in the proceedings, submitted a written statement, and participated in the case, but later chose to remain absent, resulting in ex parte proceedings in accordance with law. Such a party, the Court held, cannot subsequently rely on his own negligence as a ground for reopening the case.
The judgment stated that while ordering remand, the appellate court had failed to identify any specific issue requiring further consideration and instead sent the entire case back for retrial, which was contrary to the proper exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court observed that the family dispute had remained pending since 2017 and had not reached a final resolution despite the passage of nearly a decade. Since family cases involve the rights of spouses and children, prompt and conclusive adjudication is essential. The Court set aside the judgments of both the Peshawar High Court and the appellate court and remanded the matter to the appellate court, directing it to hear the parties on the basis of the existing record and decide the appeal finally within three months.
