2025 PLP 1712 (CLC)

WIQAR AHMAD, J.

Petitioner namely, Habib Sultan son of Sultan Mehmood has filed instant constitutional petition against blocking of his Computerized National Identity Card ("CNIC") through orders of learned Executing court. It is contended in the writ petition that respondent No.1 had filed a suit for recovery of certain amount against petitioner before Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nowshera on 30.9.2022. Said suit had been decreed and subsequently an execution petition has been filed in the Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge-IX, Nowshera and was pending there when learned executing Court issued order for blocking of CNIC of petitioner on 19.10.2023.

2. It is case of the petitioner before this Court that section 18 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000 was giving powers of cancelling or confiscation of Identity Cards to NADRA authorities and learned executing Court was not having jurisdiction to order blockage of Identity Card. Learned counsel representing petitioner raised similar arguments before this court and also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Lahore High Court reported as PLD 2022 Lahore 756.

3. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner heard and record perused.

4. Perusal of record reveal that it is not denied that a competent court of law i.e. Executing Court had issued orders for blocking CNIC of the petitioner on 19.10.2023. Petitioner has approached this Court without approaching the executing Court for unblocking of his CNIC. The order of learned executing Court was not without lawful authority as by now rule 117 has been added to Order XXI Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which reads as follow; "

117. The modes of compelling the judgment debtor for his attendance or for completing the execution proceedings may include blockage of his Computerized National Identity Card."

5. Since learned executing Court was having lawful authority for blocking CNIC therefore, it was not a case of want of lawful authority. Petitioner was avoiding his appearance before executing court as is evident from the order sheets, copies of some of which have also been annexed with instant writ petition. In such circumstances learned executing court has rightly resorted to blocking CNIC of the petitioner.

6. Besides, High Court while entertaining writ petition may also take into consideration conduct of a petitioner. As stated earlier petitioner was avoiding his appearance before the executing Court which was his inviolable obligation in accordance with Article 5 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In such circumstances his approach before the High Court by filing instant writ petition cannot be accepted to be in good faith. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while giving its judgment in case of Muhammad Arif v. Uzma Afzal and others reported as 2011 SCMR 374 has also inter alia held that whoever came to the High Court for seeking a relief in its constitutional jurisdiction, had to satisfy conscious of the court that he was having clean hands. Relevant observations recorded in said judgment are also reproduced hereunder for ready reference; "

5. There is no cavil to the proposition that "conduct of petitioner can be taken into consideration in allowing or disallowing equitable relief in constitutional jurisdiction. The principle that the Court should lean in favour of adjudication of causes on merit, appears to be available for invocation only when the person relying on it himself comes to the Court with clean hands and equitable considerations also lie in his favour. High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is bound to proceed on maxim" he who seeks equity must do equity". Continual jurisdiction is an equitable jurisdiction. Whoever comes to High Court to seek relief has to satisfy the conscience of the court that he was clean hands. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in aid of injustice. The High Court will not grant relief under this Article when the petitioner does not come to the court with clean hands. He may claim relief only when he himself is not violating provisions of law, especially of the law under which he is claiming entitlement." Further reliance in this respect may be placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered in the case of Dr. Azim Ur Rehman Khan MEO v. Government of Sindh and another reported as 2004 SCMR 1299 and the case of Aziz ur Rehman Ch. v. M. Nasiruddin and others reported as PLD 1965 SC 236.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner was heard at length but he failed to make out a case for interference of this court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Judgement of Hon'ble Lahore High referred to above was not applicable in the case in hand, for reasons that rules have been amended in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and powers of learned executing court to block CNIC have been reserved for executing Court.

8. In such circumstances instant writ petition was found lacking substance and same is dismissed in limine. SA/77/P Petition dismissed.