Secretary C&W v. Dad Bakhsh,
PCrLJ 2013 478 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a contractor, Dad Bakhsh, who sued the Communication and Works Department of the Balochistan Government and its officials, claiming they owed him money he had spent on their verbal instructions, including expenses incurred during a visit by senior officers and for extra construction work. The government officials were served with the lawsuit but failed to properly defend it: their written statement was signed only by their lawyer instead of by them personally, they did not clearly deny the contractor's claims, and they later stopped appearing in court altogether. Based on this, the trial court passed an ex parte (one-sided) judgment against the government without ever recording evidence or examining witnesses, and this decision was upheld on appeal. The court then allowed the government's own Rest House to be auctioned off to satisfy the decree.
The Balochistan High Court found serious flaws in this process. It ruled that pleadings alone are not evidence, that the decree was issued on a date that wasn't even a proper hearing date, that summons was never properly served on the key official, and that government property cannot be sold based on such a legally void decree. The court suspected collusion between the contractor and the officials who failed to defend the case properly, causing loss to public funds. It set aside the earlier decisions, sent the case back for a proper trial with evidence, and ordered the government to investigate and hold the responsible officials accountable. The case highlights the importance of due process and safeguarding public money from careless or collusive litigation.
یہ مقدمہ ایک ٹھیکیدار، داد بخش، سے متعلق ہے جس نے بلوچستان حکومت کے محکمہ مواصلات و تعمیرات اور اس کے افسران کے خلاف مقدمہ دائر کیا تھا۔ اس کا دعویٰ تھا کہ افسران کی زبانی ہدایات پر اس نے جو رقم خرچ کی تھی، بشمول اعلیٰ افسران کے دورے کے دوران اٹھائے گئے اخراجات اور اضافی تعمیراتی کام کے اخراجات، وہ رقم اسے ادا نہیں کی گئی۔ حکومتی افسران کو مقدمے کا نوٹس تو موصول ہوا مگر وہ اس کا مناسب دفاع کرنے میں ناکام رہے: ان کے تحریری جواب دعویٰ پر خود ان کے بجائے صرف ان کے وکیل کے دستخط تھے، انہوں نے ٹھیکیدار کے دعووں کی واضح تردید نہیں کی، اور بعد میں وہ عدالت میں پیش ہونا ہی چھوڑ گئے۔ اسی بنا پر ٹرائل کورٹ نے، بغیر کسی شہادت ریکارڈ کیے یا گواہوں کا معائنہ کیے، حکومت کے خلاف یک طرفہ فیصلہ صادر کر دیا، اور اپیل میں بھی یہ فیصلہ برقرار رکھا گیا۔ اس کے بعد عدالت نے حکومت کے اپنے ریسٹ ہاؤس کی نیلامی کی اجاز