The Supreme Court has held that the power to remand cases to subordinate courts for a fresh hearing is an exceptional and corrective jurisdiction that cannot be exercised as a matter of routine. The Court observed that appellate courts are duty-bound to decide disputes themselves where the record is complete, rather than subjecting litigants to unnecessary and prolonged litigation.
According to a detailed judgment, 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 a 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.
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.
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.
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.
‘Illegal kidney trade a grave issue’
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has expressed deep concern over the rising incidents of illegal organ trafficking and the illicit sale of kidneys, terming it a “highly serious and complex” issue that often implicates doctors, hospitals, and regulatory failures.
A three-member bench, headed by Justice Hashim Kakar, made these observations on Wednesday while hearing an acquittal plea filed by Dr. Fawad Mumtaz Khan, a Taxila-based physician sentenced to seven years in prison for his involvement in organ trafficking. Officials from the Punjab Human Organ Transplantation Authority (PHOTA) were also in attendance.
During the proceedings, the bench highlighted the growing trend of illegal organ extraction and transplantation. Justice Kakar noted that the regulatory control in Punjab appears to be virtually non-existent, making it easy for individuals to procure kidneys from the province.
“In Punjab, a kidney can be easily obtained for 1.8 to 2 million rupees, with traffickers shamelessly exploiting the poverty of the donors,” Justice Kakar remarked.
The Punjab government prosecutor informed the court that while the buyers pay millions, the donors typically receive only two to four hundred thousand rupees, with agents pocketing the remainder. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, a member of the bench, questioned the alarming prevalence of these practices in the province.
The court was further briefed on the specific charges against Dr. Khan, who is accused of luring a citizen with the promise of employment, rendering the victim unconscious, and extracting a kidney without consent. The prosecutor revealed that the accused doctor faces ten additional cases of a similar nature.
Justice Panhwar emphasized that such crimes often point to a systemic failure, noting that doctors, hospitals, and relevant government institutions are sometimes complicit.
The Supreme Court has directed all parties to appear at the next hearing with comprehensive records to facilitate a final decision on the complex case. The proceedings were subsequently adjourned until June 11.
Dr. Fawad Mumtaz Khan had previously been sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment by a trial court, a verdict that was subsequently upheld by the High Court. He has now moved the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction.