Foreign judgment

2025 PLD 35 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Transfer of Offenders Ordinance (XXXVII of 2002), Ss. 6 & 9Possession of narcotic substancesAppreciation of evidenceForeign judgmentTransfer of offenderScopeProsecution case was that 8.3545 kilograms heroin was recovered from the possession of accused

Record showed that the accused was arrested in the year 2010 in Sri Lanka on the charges of trafficking 8.3545 kilograms heroin and after a full fledged trial, he was convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court of Negombo in Sri Lanka

However, sentence of accused was later commuted to life imprisonment by the President of Sri Lanka

Accused was subsequently transferred to Pakistan under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002 ('Ordinance') for serving out the remaining portion of his sentence

Case of the accused was that since he was convicted for possessing 8.246 kilograms of heroin, therefore his sentence be reduced to 14 years under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, particularly keeping in view the proviso thereof

Validity

Court in Pakistan could not act as a Court of appeal or revision in respect of the order of imprisonment inflicted upon the offender in a foreign State

In fact the offender was transferred to Pakistan to serve out his sentence after his conviction and sentence had attained finality in the foreign State

Scope of interference under subsection (4) of S. 9 of the Ordinance is limited to a case where the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the transferred offender is incompatible with the laws of Pakistan

In the case in hand, the accused had been transferred to Pakistan to serve out the sentence of imprisonment for life, which as per S. 9(3) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is imprisonment in jail for a period of twenty-five years

Punishment provided in S. 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing narcotic drugs, psychotropic substance or controlled substances weighing more than 01 kilograms, is death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years

Purpose of the proceedings under S. 9(4) of the Ordinance is not to sit in appeal or revision over the original order of a Court of foreign State, rather to remove the incompatibility of the foreign sentence with the municipal laws of Pakistan

In the case in hand, possessing heroin weighing more than 08 kilograms is punishable under S. 9(c) Control Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and the sentence of life imprisonment is provided thereunder

Principle that when a statute provides for more than one type of sentences, then the accused shall be awarded punishment which is less severe, is observed by the Courts while inflicting sentences on conclusion of trial after recording of evidence within the municipal laws of Pakistan

In the case in hand, the accused had exhausted the available legal remedies against the original order of conviction in Sri Lanka and consequently his death sentence was converted into life imprisonment

Such sentence could, therefore, not be reviewed, modified, reduced or otherwise altered by Courts in Pakistan, except the proceedings under S. 9(4) of the Ordinance, which power is limited to "adoption of corresponding sentence as far as practicable to the sentence imposed on the offender by the Courts of a foreign State" that too in case of incapability of the sentences of transferring and receiving States

Thus, the sentence of life imprisonment inflicted upon the accused by the foreign State was compatible with sentence provided in S. 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and did not call for interference by way of "adoption"

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2025 CLC 22 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.7Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 13Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionDivorce Effectiveness CertificateForeign judgmentEffect

Petitioner and respondent were husband and wife but the relationship ended in divorce pronounced by foreign Court of competent jurisdiction

Respondent / Arbitration Council declined to issue Divorce Effectiveness Certificate

Validity

Provision of S. 7 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 merely regulates process of recognition by requiring parties to abide by mandatory process, involving 90-day reconciliation period, before divorce is recognized as being effective

Foreign Court in California issued proclamation with regard to dissolution of marriage of parties during pendency of instant petition

Neither party contested jurisdiction of foreign court to do so

Such pronouncement had to be given effect in terms of S. 13, C.P.C.

There was nothing preventing respondent / Arbitration Council from issuing a certificate of effectiveness of divorce in terms of S. 7(3) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 in view of the judgment of dissolution of marriage already issued by a competent foreign court

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2025 PLD 274 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Foreign judgmentScope

Foreign judgment is given recognition in International law on the basis of principle of reciprocity and comity that gives rise to rights and obligations.

2024 PLC(CS) 1325 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Foreign judgmentsApplicability

Foreign judgments have persuasive / non-binding effect but their analysis provides effective tool for comprehending the proposition of law and assists in interpreting legal concepts / jurisdictional issues.

2022 PLD 378 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 3(2)(m)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.11, 13 & 44-ASuit for recovery of claimRes judicata, principle ofApplicabilityForeign judgmentPlaintiff sought recovery of its claim under admiralty jurisdiction

Defendant resisted the claim on the ground that the matter in issue had already been adjudicated and decided in a foreign Court

Validity

Conclusiveness of a judgment was determined under S.13, C.P.C., subject to conditions as structured therein whereas its executability was under S.44A, C.P.C.

If judgment was conclusive for its implementation and execution, then it was conclusive for giving effect to doctrine of res judicata, provided it had crossed prerequisites of S.11, C.P.C.

Such was plaintiff's choice not to enforce foreign judgment in terms of Ss.13 & 44A, C.P.C., as he opted to initiate fresh proceeding for recovery of same claim

Provision of S. 11, C.P.C. was universal doctrine so it did not matter if judgment was of a foreign Court or of a Court beyond territorial limits of High Court

Subject claim was a tried and adjudicated issue (within competent jurisdiction) so principle of res judicata was applied

No legislation was enacted contrary to acceptance of such rule except as provided in S. 11, C.P.C.

Prima facie case was not made out and suit itself suffered under doctrine of res judicata

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 YLR 1533 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 491Habeas corpusCustody of minorsMinors, foreign nationalsForeign judgmentScope

Petitioner filed petition under S.491, Cr.P.C. for issuance of an appropriate order with direction in the nature of habeas corpus

Contention of petitioner was that according to the parenting plan submitted by him and respondent in foreign court both parents would exercise joint parental authority over minors and the parents would consult each other when they planned any relocation of residence of the minors in custody of respondent

Matter of custody had already been decided by foreign courts and the minors were foreign nationals

Respondent had secretly, without consent and knowledge of the petitioner brought the minors to Pakistan

Petition was accepted and the custody of minors was handed over to the petitioner.

2019 CLC 562 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13 & 115Civil RevisionSuit for declaration and permanent injunctionJurisdiction of CourtForeign judgmentPlaintiff was UK national and assailed judgment passed in UK against himSuit as well as appeal filed by plaintiff was dismissed

Plea raised by plaintiff was that since both parties were Pakistani citizens by origin who married in Pakistan under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1965 and their marriage was registered in Pakistan, therefore, UK law was not the applicable on parties but that of Pakistan

Validity

Parties having immigrated to and got UK nationality, were UK nationals and subject of UK laws as well as to laws of Pakistan and jurisdiction of UK courts could not be curtailed

Plaintiff could not establish any of exceptions given in S.13, C.P.C. attracted in his case

High Court declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction as there were concurrent findings of law and fact against plaintiff which were immune from interference unless there was some gross illegality floating on surface

Plaintiff failed to point out any illegality therefore no interference was warranted by High Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PLD 1 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13Foreign judgmentValidity

Defendant admitted the passing of foreign judgment in his written statement as well as in his statement recorded as witness

Such judgment was not challenged through appeal nor any objection was raised under any of the exceptions provided by law

Foreign judgment would become conclusive and irrefutable in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2017 PLD 1 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 13Foreign judgmentQuestion of correctnessScope

Courts in Pakistan could not question the correctness of the foreign judgment subject to the exceptions as enumerated in S.13, C.P.C. and if the said exceptions, were fulfilled, the judgment was conclusive between the parties.

2014 PLD 209 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13 & 44-AForeign judgmentExecution, refusal ofPrinciple

Provisions of S.44-A, C.P.C. and S.13, CPC are not independent of each other and are in fact interlinked and dependent in as much as even a final judgment of a foreign court, after its approval from appellate court (of a country with whom there is an international treaty) cannot be executed directly without recourse to the provisions of exceptions as contained in S.13, CPC

Court in Pakistan can refuse execution of such final judgments of foreign courts, if they fall under any of the exceptions contained in S.13, CPC

No foreign judgment or decree can be executed on the basis of provisions of S.44-A, CPC independently, without recourse to and satisfaction of the provisions of S.13, CPC.

2014 PLD 209 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13, 44-A, 151 & O.XI, R.2Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3Intra court appealForeign judgmentExecutionInterrogatoriesScope

Application filed by defendant under O.XI, R.2, C.P.C. read with S.151, C.P.C. for administering interrogatories on plaintiff for examination and reply thereof was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court

Validity

Matters already decided and adjudicated by foreign courts were conclusive, definitive and irrefutable in nature and could not be re-opened except as provided under the exceptions of S.13 C.P.C.

Interrogatories were meant to ascertain facts which were not so disclosed in plaint

Scrutiny of facts was out of the ambit of S.13 C.P.C., therefore, such interrogatories had no role in a suit filed on the basis of foreign judgment and decree under S.13, C.P.C.

Defendant had chosen to continue with its case only on the basis of foreign judgment and decided to forego its claim on original cause of action, then defendant was not to lead any evidence in the matter, as according to defendant foreign judgment was conclusive in its own nature

Only case remained was adjudication of it with respect to six exceptions available to defendant under S.13, C.P.C.

No evidence was available and consequently question of any interrogatories did not arise as facts were not to be ascertained anymore and the only legal issues (on the basis of six exceptions) were to be decided and no interrogatories could be administered on plaintiff

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2012 CLD 774 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 13 & O.XI, R.1Foreign judgmentSuit for recovery of bank loanInterrogatories, delivery of

Plaintiff bank filed recovery suit against defendant on the basis of decree passed by a foreign court against same defendant and in favour of same plaintiff

Defendant filed application under O.XI, R. 1, C.P.C. to serve interrogatories on plaintiff bank

Validity

All questions put to plaintiff bank by defendant related to evidence to be led by plaintiff

If at all, plaintiff bank would choose to lead evidence in respect of original cause of action, then defendant was entitled to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses and to examine and challenge any document that they might produce and proposed questions could be put to such witnesses

No party was entitled to serve interrogatories to find out the facts constituting the other side's evidence and proposed questions of defendant fell in such category

Defendant should, therefore, wait for the trial to put such questions to plaintiff's witness, if the latter would choose to lead evidence on original cause of action

Inappropriate for defendant to serve proposed interrogatories on plaintiff bank at present stage

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

2012 CLC 704 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 13 & O.XI, R.1Foreign judgmentSuit for recovery of bank loanInterrogatories, delivery of

Plaintiff-Bank filed recovery suit against defendant on the basis of decree passed by a foreign court against same defendant and in favour of same plaintiff

Defendant filed application under O.XI, R.1, C.P.C. to serve interrogatories on plaintiff-Bank

Validity

All questions put to plaintiff-Bank by defendant related to evidence, to be led by plaintiff

If at all, plaintiff-Bank would choose to lead evidence in respect of original cause of action, then defendant was entitled to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses and to examine and challenge any document that they might produce and proposed questions could be put to such witnesses

No party was entitled to serve interrogatories to find out the facts constituting the other side's evidence and proposed questions of defendant fell in such category

Defendant should, therefore, wait for the trial to put such questions to plaintiff's witness, if the latter would choose to lead evidence on original cause of action

Inappropriate for defendant to serve proposed interrogatories on plaintiff-Bank at present stage

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

2011 PLD 257 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.14Foreign judgmentScope

Such judgments are presumed to be pronounced by court of competent jurisdiction within the contemplation of S.14, C.P.C.

1947 PLD 150 PRIVY-COUNCIL Judicial Precedent

S. 13-"Foreign judgment", "judgment given on merits" and "directly adjudi­cated upon" explained.