ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that if a court lacks jurisdiction, it should not dismiss or reject a case; instead, it should return the plaint/case for presentation before the court vested with the proper jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter.
“In the scenario of having no jurisdiction, the best suited remedy and solution is provided under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC which puts the accent on the principle that if a court lacks jurisdiction, it should not dismiss or reject a case but return the plaint/case for its presentation before the Court conferred with the jurisdiction to deal and decide,” said the judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali set aside the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), Islamabad, directing it to first decide the question of jurisdiction and maintainability vis-à-vis the status of petitioners, whether they are civil servants or not.
The FST had dismissed the service appeals of the petitioners (Muhammad Afzal and Usama Mehmood), who were appointed as NaibQasid in the respondent’s department (Director GEO Information Center Survey of Pakistan, Peshawar) in April 2019. They were assigned field work and directed to move to Chilas vide letter dated 01.04.2022, where they remained posted till May 2022. However, on the allegations of fake appointment letters, their services were terminated vide order dated 31.08.2023 with retrospective effect from 15.04.2019.
The petitioners filed their departmental appeals, which were not responded to within the statutory period; hence, they filed service appeals before FST, but their appeals were dismissed by means of an impugned judgment, that they were locally hired and did not fall within the definition of a civil servant.
The SC judgment noted that the FST, despite conceiving that appeals were not maintainable, also overwhelmingly touched upon the merits of the case and held that petitioners/appellants were recruited based on forged appointment letters in violation of the recruitment rules of the Survey of Pakistan, which govern recruitment, pay, age, physical fitness, promotion, and other terms and conditions of service
The judgment said, “If a Court or Tribunal concludes that it lacks the jurisdiction, then the finest legal option is to return the case. Any adjudication on the merits by a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is ‘coram non judice’ and therefore void,” it added.
It further said that the question of jurisdiction is the portal through which the plaintiff/appellant/petitioner knocks at the door of the Courts, and if he enters the wrong one, the court must redirect him rather than closing the door on their rights.”
The judgment maintained that returning a plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC preserves the party’s right to seek a decision on the merits in the proper forum rather than ending their legal journey prematurely. “Touching upon the merits without jurisdiction may prejudice the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution and result in a failure of justice,” it ruled.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments