"The first duty of a government is to maintain law and order so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the state," said Mohammad Ali Jinnah on August 11 1947. Thousands may exclaim, "Does the man not know that Jinnah's Pakistan died with him one year later?"

The chehlum of Shaukat Raza Mirza, so brutally murdered, was held two days ago. During the period since he was killed, there has been speculation as to the reason. Half of officialdom maintains that it was on account of his being a high-profile Shia high executive; the other half says it was because he was doing too good a job heading the Pakistan State Oil, the premier oil company of this country and had unearthed humongous scams. He was gunned down in broad daylight, in the middle of a public thoroughfare. His murderers have not yet been identified or found and brought to justice.

During this past week two Shia surgeons have closed their clinics and are going abroad, taking with them their knowledge in their heads and hands, and justifiably so as they do not wish to be killed merely because they happen to be Shias. So much for life in Pakistan. My first column on justice dealt with life. We now deal with property.

Again, I say, lest someone should hasten to deem otherwise, I am not writing this column in this newspaper of record with any intent to commit contempt of the chief justice of Pakistan, or of any other honourable justice of the Supreme Court, or of any other court of Pakistan.

The chief justice of China visited Islamabad this summer. During his discussions with our own chief justice, Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, Justice Khan expressed a desire to visit China and meet other Chinese judges of the superior courts and explain how well Justice was dispensed in Pakistan. The inscrutable Chinese, ever wanting to learn, have now invited him to visit his country. Justice Khan is leaving for Beijing on September 3 for a ten-day visit, and so that other judges may also not only benefit from the Chinese experience but aid him in expounding how our justice system works.

He is taking with him Supreme Court Justices Sheikh Riaz Ahmed, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Qazi Mohammad Farooq, Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, law secretary Justice Faqir Mohammad Khokar and secretary of the Law Commission Justice Faqir Hussain. They should all be back with us by Monday, September 17, so that the Supreme Court will be fully functional again, having reconvened on September 5 following its three months summer vacation.

The cause of justice in Pakistan will suffer for a fortnight and the visit will cost our exchequer some million rupees, and the Chinese some more millions - all worthwhile taking into account the benefits to be had by the Chinese and our own judges.

All for the better. In China they may meet a pupil of the Great Master who may convey to our men one of the foremost thoughts of their old Sage: "He who knows what he knows, and knows what he knows not, is the one who knows"

Now to property, and a tale which should neither shock nor surprise anyone familiar with the administration of justice in Pakistan. My grandfather, Fakirjee Cowasjee, held and possessed what the family considered to be among the best properties of Karachi - a rectangular plot admeasuring some 8,500 square yards of prime vacant land situated in the centre of the city, to the west of where the Marriot Hotel and the American consulate now stand. In 1939, soon after war was declared in Europe and before his plans to develop the plot could be executed, he died.

The British government requisitioned the property for the duration of World War II and some temporary structures were constructed on it. After the war, the British asked for time to wind up their affairs and before they could derequisition it, Karachi became the capital of Pakistan and the land was requisitioned by the government of Pakistan. It remained so until 1985 when it was acquired by the government.

We claimed compensation, as provided for in law, Rs 6,000 per sq yd, the requisitioning commissioner awarded us Rs.3,000 per sq yd. The government has so far paid us Rs.1,100 per square yard.

We appealed, we filed a reference in the High Court. In the meantime my father Rustom died at the age of 91 in 1992. The matter is still pending settlement. When it is decided the loser will file an appeal before a division bench of the High Court, and when that is decided a further appeal will be made to the Supreme Court.

My brothers and I are now in our mid-seventies, and the eldest of the next generation is 50. By the time the case is finally decided the fourth generation may also have departed to meet their maker. Seventy years?

What happens elsewhere? Say, in London, under the British system of justice? Let's take a case involving the Mians of Lahore - Shahbaz Sharif, Mohammad Sharif and Abbas Sharif - and the Hudaibiya Paper Mills Limited, who borrowed millions of dollars from Investment Funds Limited, a concern operated by Al-Tawfik Company, and in true Pakistani fashion did not repay it. Al-Tawfik went to court in London. On September 4, 1998, a master of the court, Master Rose, served an order on Hudaibiya and the Mians, who then filed an application before Justice Buckley of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England, seeking that the order and service of proceedings be set aside.

On February 5, 1999, the judge wrote a one-page order refusing the application. On March 16, 1999, the court delivered its judgement ordering the Mians to repay the loan. It was not repaid by November 5, 1999, on which date Master Trench by a one-page order had the London properties of the Mians attached. The Mians then decided to pay up and a 'consent order' was signed by the lawyers of the two parties on January 25, 2000. The entire matter was settled within 16 months.

Again, in London. In the Court of Appeal, on July 29 and 30 1983 Lord Justice Ackner and Justice Oliver sat to hear an appeal in the matter of Continental Grain Co. of the USA versus Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Government Trading Corporation of Iran. The opening paragraph of the judgment written by Lord Ackner reads:

"There is a risk that the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal are providing too good a service for litigants. Last Thursday at 8 am Mr Justice Parker sat to deal with the interlocutory proceedings which are the subject matter of this appeal. An indication was given on Friday morning that it was desired to appeal, Friday being the last day of term. The work of that day having been completed in separate courts by myself and Lord Justice Oliver, we began again at 2.15 to consider this case, which was said to be likely to last three hours. We sat again at 10 o'clock today, Saturday, and it is now 4.33 when we come to give judgment. I make no apology for saying that the judgment will lack the detail and the quality which one would have hoped to put into it but for that recital of the facts and the pressures which are now brought to bear upon the courts with a view to getting urgent answers to urgent matters."

The matter had initially come up in the Commercial Court on July 21 before Justice Parker when the plaintiffs, an international commodity trading concern, sought an injunction to prevent 6000 tons of soya bean oil for which they claimed title, from falling into the hands of the Iranian Trading Corporation.

Continental Grain had contracted to sell the oil to Interice Ltd which would sell it to the Iranians. The oil was shipped on an Iranian Shipping Lines' vessel f.o.b., and payment was to be effected in cash against documents. Interice failed to pay Continental, which then applied for an injunction ordering the Iranian Shipping Lines to divert its vessel to a safe port (Karachi being the most convenient), discharge it and deliver it to Continental. The application for injunctive relief was adjourned, the Iranians gave an undertaking to keep the vessel outside Iranian waters until July 27, and to enter into negotiations regarding the disposal of the oil. The second undertaking did not materialize. The matter came back to Justice Parker on July 29.

The Iranians applied for a stay of the action. Justice Parker granted an injunction and refused a stay. The Iranians then appealed. Lord Ackner and Oliver heard the appeal on July 29 and 30 and dismissed it. The entire matter took ten days from start to finish. The property owners were careful. They had stipulated that the transactions would be covered by the laws of England. Without any hesitation and without having been asked to so do, the judges worked on a holiday, and that too at the start of their vacation.

Moral of the story: wherever possible, have contracts covered by the laws of England.