P L D 2025 Supreme Court 1043 (PLP)
ABDUL SALAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus Messrs BANK AL-HABIB LTD. and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2025 Supreme Court 1043 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SALAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus Messrs BANK AL-HABIB LTD. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (c) Administration of justice |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2025 Supreme Court 1043 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (c) Administration of justice as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2025 Supreme Court 1043 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2025 Supreme Court 1043 (PLP) (ABDUL SALAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus Messrs BANK AL-HABIB LTD. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 4, 9 & 10-A
Auction of immoveable property by a bank, challenge to
Objections and appeal remaining pending for fourteen years
Protracted litigation
Delay in adjudication of cases rendering the remedy ineffective
Scope
Sands of time may erode the potency of a relief and may render it ineffective
Validity of auction was upheld, however, Supreme Court underscored the importance of ensuring timely decisions in all cases to safeguard the right of access to justice
The primary issue in the present case was the petitioner's challenge to the auction of his immovable property, conducted by a bank in execution of a money decree in 2010
Although the petitioner raised objections promptly in 2011, his appeal lingered on for ten years before the High Court and then another three years before it come up for determination by the Supreme Court
The legal question before the Supreme Court in the present matter was as to "whether any meaningful or effective relief could be granted to the petitioner in challenging the bank's auction of his immovable property, after the extraordinary lapse of fourteen years since the auction took place, given that the objections had already been dismissed by the lower courts and the matter had suffered prolonged delays at every judicial stage"?
In essence, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide "whether justice delayed to such an extent becomes justice denied (or extinguished), and whether the validity of the auction could still be disturbed after such protracted litigation"?
Held: After fourteen years since the auction and due notice, neither the petitioner nor any authorized representative had appeared before the Supreme Court to pursue the petition
In these circumstances, granting any further adjournment was both unwarranted and inconceivable
Supreme Court, nevertheless, had undertaken a careful examination of the petitioner's objections and the record of the case
The objections to the auction proceedings did not appear to be tenable, and no reason was found to deviate from the concurrent findings of the courts below
However, before parting with the judgment, the Supreme Court strongly emphasized the need to uphold the right to access to justice through the delivery of timely decisions
The Supreme Court noted that long delays in hearing and deciding cases made remedies meaningless and denied people their basic right to justice
It was pointed out that delays were not just due to heavy caseloads but were part of deeper structural problems in the system and to fix this, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for reforms such as better case management, tracking of old pending cases, and the use of technology like e-filing, automated scheduling, and even AI tools to make the process faster and more transparent
Referring to reforms in other countries, the Supreme Court emphasized that Pakistan's judiciary must also remodel the case management framework so that justice could be delivered both fairly and without unnecessary delay
In the present case, Supreme Court noted that even if the petitioner's claim had merit, the sands of time might have eroded its potency
Since the objections of the petitioner against the auction were found to be untenable, the present petition was dismissed on merits as well as for non-prosecution.
Arts. 4, 9 & 10-A
Delay in adjudication of cases
Effect
Scope
Responsibility of judiciary to ensure efficiency and fairness stated
Need for intelligent case management framework and technological reforms emphasised
The right to access to justice is guaranteed by Articles 4, 9 & 10A of the Constitution
It encompasses within it the right to a fair and timely trial
Delay that renders a remedy ineffective or a right illusory amounts to a denial of due process
Justice, to be real, must be both just and timely
Delay in adjudication is not merely a by-product of docket congestion or branch-level inefficiencies; it is a deeper, structural challenge of judicial governance
The Court, as a matter of institutional policy and constitutional responsibility, must urgently transition toward a modern, responsive, and intelligent case management framework
Such a system must, at a minimum, ensure: the early fixation of cases on a non-discriminatory basis; the elimination of "queue-jumping" and preferential scheduling; the prioritization of matters involving constitutional, economic, or national importance without compromising the timely resolution of individual claims; the implementation of age-tracking protocols to automatically identify dormant cases; and the judicious use of Artificial Intelligence ("AI")tools to assist in scheduling and triage while preserving the sanctity of judicial discretion
Judicial systems across the world have recognized that delay is not an intractable inevitability but a solvable institutional challenge
Through tools such as e-filing, real-time dashboards, automated scheduling, and transparent digital oversight, other judicial systems across the world have moved from being passive custodians of dockets to active managers of justice delivery
These international experiences underscore a basic truth: delays in justice are not inevitable; they are a product of institutional design, and can be remedied with vision, planning, and resolve
The judiciary of Pakistan must draw upon these global lessons and commit to transformative reform that integrates technological innovation, administrative restructuring, and disciplined case management
Courts must evolve into engines of timely, transparent, and citizen-focused justice.
Delay in adjudication of cases
Protracted litigation
Justice delayed is not merely justice denied, it is often justice extinguished
Even if a claim is on merit, the sands of time may erode its potency
Delay in adjudicating cases by the courts at any tier of the justice system corrodes public confidence in the judiciary, undermines the rule of law, and disproportionately harms the weak and vulnerable who cannot afford the cost of prolonged litigation
Delay in adjudication carries severe macroeconomic and societal consequences: it deters investment, renders contracts illusory, and weakens the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary
A justice system's credibility rests not only in the fairness of its decisions but also in the timeliness with which those decisions are rendered.
Judgment & Decree
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.
The present petition arises out of a challenge to the auction of an immovable property conducted by a bank in execution of a money decree dated 26.04.2010. The auction took place in 2011. The petitioner promptly raised objections the same year, which were dismissed. An appeal was preferred before the High Court and remained pending for an extraordinary period of ten (10) years, culminating in a decision in 2021. The matter then reached this Court in 2022 and is being taken up now, three years later, in 2025.
2. The question that engages the attention of this Court is not limited to the validity of the auction; rather it extends to whether any meaningful relief can now be granted after the passage of fourteen years. Even if the petitioner's claim had merit, the sands of time have all but eroded its potency. Justice delayed is not merely justice denied; it is often justice extinguished. In this case, the petitioner's claim stands virtually interred under the weight of protracted judicial indifference.
3. It is telling that, after fourteen years since the auction and due notice, neither the petitioner nor any authorized representative has appeared before this Court to pursue the petition. In these circumstances, granting any further adjournment is both unwarranted and inconceivable. We have, nevertheless, undertaken a careful examination of the petitioner's objections and the record of the case. The objections to the auction proceedings do not appear to be tenable, and we find no reason to deviate from the concurrent findings of the courts below. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed on merits as well as for non-prosecution. Office shall dispatch a copy of this order to the parties for information and record.
4. Having examined the case, the Court cannot remain indifferent to the systemic malaise of delay in the adjudication of cases. In this case the appeal of the petitioner kept pending before the High Court for ten (10) years. It is beyond cavil that delay in adjudicating cases by the courts at any tier of the justice system corrodes public confidence in the judiciary, undermines the rule of law, and disproportionately harms the weak and vulnerable who cannot afford the cost of prolonged litigation. Delay in adjudication carries severe macroeconomic and societal consequences: it deters investment, renders contracts illusory, and weakens the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary. A justice system's credibility rests not only in the fairness of its decisions but also in the timeliness with which those decisions are rendered.
5. The issue is not merely administrative, it is constitutional. The right to access to justice is guaranteed by Articles 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.1 It encompasses within it the right to a fair and timely trial. Delay that renders a remedy ineffective or a right illusory amount to a denial of due process. Justice, to be real, must be both just and timely.
6. The statistics speak for themselves. It is pertinent to highlight that over 2.2 million cases are currently pending before courts across Pakistan, including approximately 55,941 cases before this Court alone,2 inspite of enhancing the number of judges at the Court. These figures are not abstract; they represent disputes suspended in time.
7. Delay in adjudication is not merely a by-product of docket congestion or branch-level inefficiencies; it is a deeper, structural challenge of judicial governance. The Court, as a matter of institutional policy and constitutional responsibility, must urgently transition toward a modern, responsive, and intelligent case management framework. Such a system must, at a minimum, ensure: the early fixation of cases on a non-discriminatory basis; the elimination of "queue jumping" and preferential scheduling; the prioritization of matters involving constitutional, economic, or national importance without compromising the timely resolution of individual claims; the implementation of age-tracking protocols to automatically identify dormant cases; and the judicious use of Artificial Intelligence ("AI") tools to assist in scheduling and triage while preserving the sanctity of judicial discretion.
8. Judicial systems across the world have recognized that delay is not an intractable inevitability but a solvable institutional challenge. Countries such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Estonia, Canada, China, Denmark, and Australia have undertaken comprehensive reforms combining technology, structural innovation, and procedural discipline to reduce backlog and enhance judicial efficiency. Through tools such as e-filing, real-time dashboards, automated scheduling, and transparent digital oversight, these jurisdictions have moved from being passive custodians of dockets to active managers of justice delivery. These international experiences underscore a basic truth: delays in justice are not inevitable; they are a product of institutional design, and can be remedied with vision, planning, and resolve. The judiciary of Pakistan must draw upon these global lessons and commit to transformative reform that integrates technological innovation, administrative restructuring, and disciplined case management. Courts must evolve into engines of timely, transparent, and citizen-focused justice. UN/A-41/SC Petition dismissed. *** 1 Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 923; Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607; Liaqat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 504; Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445; Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324; Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon PLD 1993 SC 341 and Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416. 2 Summary Statement of Case Institution, Disposal and Pendency (July 15, 2025), Supreme Court of Pakistan