Jurisdiction (Part 1)

Today's topic is a bit different from usual, this lecture is fundamentally about jurisdiction, which I'll explain with an example. Here's what happened: there was A, A's property was outside Pakistan, in some other country. A died there. Now some of A's properties were also in Pakistan. Now his lawful heirs filed a suit, including both the foreign properties and the Pakistani property, and requested the court for a declaration that we are the lawful heirs of the deceased and can transfer this property into our names as heirs. When this suit was filed, one of the lawful heirs, who was a bit mischievous, raised an objection, that, sir, this foreign property, actually he was an heir who lived abroad and wanted that property to remain in his possession and not be sold, that was the scheme behind it, he objected, saying, sir, you don't have jurisdiction over this foreign property, you have no jurisdiction over it, so it should be dismissed. The trial court refused to accept this, saying, no, we have jurisdiction, the lawful heirs need to be established, this property will be mentioned. Then he went to the district court in appeal, because his purpose was just to cause trouble, this matter eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took up this matter and gave a final decision. In that final decision it clarified the law: for any property outside the country, whatever dispute there is regarding it, no Pakistani court has jurisdiction over it, whether the parties live here or not. Then they concluded that if some properties are here and some are abroad, then the basis of the suit will be examined, what is the basis of the suit? The basis of the suit is that we be declared lawful heirs. Now being declared lawful heirs is the basis of the suit, if it mentions the deceased's properties, then the court says, the Supreme Court says, that the trial court should keep this in mind, that the basis is to prove that these are the deceased's heirs, that the deceased was the owner of these properties, then you can decide this suit, because some properties are here and some are there. Then they also discussed this: if someone dies abroad and has movable property there, like bank accounts, some money in them, or he worked for a company, or was in a government job and is owed gratuity, all this, movable property, it can be anything, for this too they need a certificate from Pakistan proving lawful heirship, sent to them, then you, as lawful heirs, the heirs, will dispute over that movable property. Keeping all these matters in mind, the Supreme Court gave two rulings. One ruling was that if it's purely and solely a property matter and the property is abroad, no Pakistani court has any jurisdiction. Now what is a purely property matter? A property matter shouldn't be limited to heirship, a property matter should stand independently, where someone says, this property, the deceased sold it to me. Now the Supreme Court says the property is abroad, this transaction happened abroad, so Pakistani courts have no jurisdiction merely on the basis that the deceased was a Pakistani, that the person he's disputing with is Pakistani, on this basis Pakistani courts cannot be given jurisdiction, and the reason was given. The reason given was that when we bring a foreign decree, some matter was there, some matter happened abroad, that matter was settled there, for example A gave money to B, A was also abroad, B was also abroad. B ate his money and fled to Pakistan, A filed a suit there, now A's suit got decreed, after the decree, on the basis of that foreign judgment, A comes to Pakistan and files a suit here based on that foreign judgment. Now what's the first thing Pakistani courts must do? The first thing is to assess the value of that judgment, whether that judgment was passed with full jurisdiction or not. Full jurisdiction means: did that court have territorial jurisdiction? Did that court have pecuniary jurisdiction? And did that court have jurisdiction to hear this case? The court will examine these three things, and if any one of these three is missing, the judgment passed abroad puts a mark against that court that it lacked jurisdiction, it had no jurisdiction, what happens then? The Pakistani court will refuse to accept that foreign judgment. Keeping this same principle in mind, the Supreme Court held that if a judgment about foreign property is passed in Pakistan, and that person takes that judgment abroad and presents it in a court there, the Supreme Court says this is contrary to the dignity of the judiciary, what will they think abroad, how bad is the Pakistani court system, that it doesn't even have the capacity to understand and assess the law, that they gave such a judgment about such a property, about such a dispute, a dispute that arose in our country. Keeping this principle in mind, the Supreme Court gave this ruling. Now the question comes, what should be done where? First, if you want to be declared lawful heirs, then you should mention all of the deceased's properties in it, because the court isn't giving you any decision about those properties, the court is only deciding that you are the lawful heirs of the deceased, in light of the evidence presented by the plaintiff, in the presence of the evidence presented, you are his heirs, at most the judge won't write it in the final paragraph, but will write in your favour that the deceased was the owner of these properties. When it's written that the deceased was the owner of these properties, it doesn't mean the judge has made some formal declaration, the judge's formal declaration is only to the extent that you are the deceased's heirs. So the first thing I've told you is that you can obtain a declaration that you're heirs, and for this you can list all of that person's properties worldwide, there's no doubt about that, but if there's a dispute over that property, even if that dispute is between two people both present in Pakistan, both Pakistani citizens, then the Supreme Court has said, well, Pakistani courts have no jurisdiction, Pakistani courts cannot do this. Now a recent matter came to me where one person, and another person, both were abroad. One person, A, lent B one hundred thousand riyals for two months, that person later reneged. In exchange, two months later, he gave him cheques of the same value, he deposited those cheques, they were dishonoured, after being dishonoured he kept pursuing him, but eventually this person defrauded a few other people too and fled to Pakistan. Now this person filed a suit in that Saudi court, saying this happened to me, they summoned B, B didn't come, they summoned B again, he didn't come. A's blood pressure started fluctuating, thinking, he's taken forty, fifty lakh rupees from me and fled, where do I go. He went to the Pakistan Embassy. He told the Pakistan Embassy, this has happened to me. The Pakistan Embassy wrote him a letter saying, sir, here's our letter, go get it processed with the FIA. That person was so distressed that he didn't let that court's proceedings finish, he formally spent money on a ticket and came to Pakistan, he wrote an application to the FIA too, using that same embassy letter as a covering letter, he also wrote to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, he wrote that application to every institution, every institution dealing with overseas Pakistanis. Now he came to me, when I heard his case I said, well, sit calmly, listen carefully to what I say next, you suffered a loss of forty, forty-five lakh rupees, you were defrauded, that person took your money and fled, this is an established fact, you know it fully well, and the person who took it knows it too, but the law does not take this situation to that point.