PESHAWAR: A lawyer on Wednesday moved the Peshawar High Court against the recent amendments to the colonial era Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), 1908.

The lawyers boycotted courts for the third consecutive day to protest the CCP changes and the enactment of a new provincial anti-narcotics law.

Advocate Mohammad Farooq Afridi filed a petition requesting the court to declare unconstitutional and against the principle of natural justice the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2019, through which drastic changes were made to the CCP.

The KP Bar Council had given a call for a three-day strike from Dec 9 to Dec 11.

The call was given against the CCP amendments and KP Control of Narcotics Substance Act.

Lawyers boycott courts for third day

A conference of lawyers from across the province will be held on the high court premises on Dec 14 to decide future course of action on the matter.

The petitioner has challenged the new-inserted Section 26- C saying the legal provision will further stress out litigants and cause complications.

The petition is filed through a panel of senior lawyers, including Abid Ali Khan, Ziaur Rehman Tajik, Mohammad Taif Khan and Mohammad Farooq Malik.

The respondents in the petition are the provincial government through chief secretary, secretaries of the establishment and law departments, principal secretary to the chief minister, and secretary of the provincial assembly.

The petitioner said Section 26-C, which dealt with framing of issues, filing of list of witnesses and recording of evidence, was unreasonable, illogical and against the basic principle of justice.

He said the section prescribed mode of recording evidence by a commission, which was in derogation and in conflict with basic principles of law.

The petitioner raised several questions regarding the section.

He wondered whether the cost for appointing a commission for recording of evidence shall be paid by the government or litigants; whether the cost incurred on parties will not be a heavy burden on poor litigants; whether the commission will move from city to city and from province to province, in case the witnesses are multiple and reside in different cities; whether the counsel for the respective parties will be accompanied by the commission, and whether Section 26-C of the 2019 amended law is not in conflict with Article 10-A of the Constitution guaranteeing fair trial.

The petitioner said the basic objective of the impugned law was speedy disposal of cases but it was universally acknowledged that justice hurried was mostly justice buried.

He said Section 26-C of that law was a classical example of immature provincial legislation as from the practice viewpoint, neither a retired judge not a well-versed and well-experienced advocate shall join the commission for recording evidence while going to far-flung areas.

The petitioner said without amending the Civil Court Ordinance, 1962, the amendments to CCP was a futile exercise.

He requested the court to grant him an interim relief by suspending the operation of the impugned Act or Section 26-C of the said Act until the final disposal of the petition.

Published in Dawn, December 12th, 2019