It is a well known fact that the litigation process is Pakistan is very lengthy and expensive. It is also no secret that a number of cases base on false and manipulated fact for some wrongful gains. In this scenario, it has become the need of time to adopt a mechanism to repulse such kind of matters early and expeditiously. Limine control doctrine provides the strategy to curb this kind of litigation.
Limine Control Doctrine and Motion in limine:
Limine control” in simple language means “dismissal of a defective cases at earliest stage”. In Malik Gul Hassan’s case the Hon’ble Court observed as:
“Generally when the High Court does not find it appropriate to admit for regular hearing a petition and before issuing a notice to the respondent -party, dismisses the petition after summary hearing it is said to be dismissed in limine.
Gull Hassan & Co. V Federation of Pakistan 1995 CLC 1662
The word “limine” is derived from the latin term “Limen” that means the threshold. In this context, this term means “at the threshold”. Black’s law dictionary (5th ed 1979) defined this term as “on or at the threshold”, at the very beginning, preliminary. In most jurisdictions, this concept is known as “Motion in limine”. In The Bank Of Nova Scotia V. Edward M. Del Grande the court defined it as
” In limine is not an expression in common current use. It means simply preliminary.”
In Billy Blanks ET AL. Vs. Seyfarth Shaw LLP et al. reported at 171 Cal.App.4th 336 (2009) 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 710 it was observed as:
In limine motions are intended to improve management by resolving complex evidentiary issues before the trial begins.
Like this motion, the Limine Control Doctrine provides a way to preclude the legally inadmissible cases to reach the trial stage. By exercising this method, courts can dispose of the non-maintainable and defective kind of matters at the earliest stage so as to save the time of courts and the litigants.
Dimensions of Limine Control Doctrine:
In limine proceedings can be exercised only where there is deficiency in case on some legal issues and not on the basis of issues of facts of case. It can not be used for purpose of seeking summary judgment or the summary adjudication of issues. It may be treated as demurrer, judgment on the pleadings, or nonsuit and address purely legal issue.
If the court left the legal points of issues at preliminary stage while continuing the suit proceedings, it does not mean that that the suit is competent from all legal aspect. Court is fully empowered to look into legal issues even during trial.
Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1593 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 361],
Just like this, even if the court denies motion in limine, it does not mean that all evidence addressed in the motion will be admitted at trial. It simply means that, without the context of the trial, the court cannot decide if the evidence should be excluded. The court will consider objections to individual pieces of evidence as they arise during the trial, even if they fall within the scope of a previously denied motion in limine.
United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 1989), citing Luce, 469 U.S. at 41, 105 S. Ct. at 463,
However, limine Control doctrine becomes applicable only in those cases, where the suit is not maintainable on the face of it and no further evidence is required to take such decision. The court has the authority to exclude evidence in limine only when it is unequivocally inadmissible on every conceivable ground.
Cf. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4, 105 S. Ct. 460, 463 n. 4, 83 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1984)
Necessity to apply Limine Control Doctrine in Pakistan:
Court has set the precedent that in present day era, where there are large number of fabricated, frivolous, concocted and malicious claims, the courts should apply doctrine of limine control so as to built the public confidence on judicial system. Exercise of this initial checking mechanism will curtail undue harassments of the defendants. There are number of enactments which can be used for this purpose i.e. i.e. Oder VII, Rule 11, Order VII, Rule 10, Order XV, Rules 1 to 4, Order XLI, Rule 11 and Section 56 of Specific Relief Act, 1877. The court in its wisdom should be be able to nip a frivolous case in the bud so as to preserve its time and docket for more real and serious type of claims.
Asif Saleem V Chairman BOG University of Lahore etc. PLD 2019 Lahore 407
Application of Limine Control Doctrine on Constitutional petitions:
The doctrine of limine control is being applied since long. Under article 199, the superior courts dismissed several constitution petitions in limine. Some case instances are given below:
Availability of alternate remedy:
The availability of an alternate efficacious remedy prevents invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is contrary to the intention of the provisions of Article 199(1) of Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Inherent powers of high court are not to be exercised in case of availability of any other remedy. It is the duty of the Court to examine, on the basis of the facts of each case, the question of the availability of any other more efficacious, adequate, and beneficial remedy.
Indus trading and contacting company V Collector of Customs (preventive) Karachi. 2016 SCMR 842
Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi V Ali S. Habib 2011 SCMR 1813
Muhammad Tahir Pervaiz V Province of punjab 2022 MLD 1777
Muhammad Abbasi V S.H.O Bhara Kahu PLD 2010 SC 969
Abdul Aziz V Secretary Finance 2017 PLC (C.S.) 304
Inordinate delay:
Petitioner remained fail to give any satisfactory explanation for the delay in approaching. Inordinate delay in invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court led to the dismissal of petition.
Safdar Ali Javed Bukhari V Deputy Settlement Commissioner Sialkot 1988 SCMR 1680
Absence of grievances:
The petitioner who is himself a practicing lawyer, had not mentioned any personal grievance regarding any act of respondent or his posting. He was neither an employee of the bank nor did he provide specifics of the respondent’s alleged corrupt practices. Charges of malpractice or corrupt practices cannot be entertained without the necessary details, ensuring the accused has a fair opportunity to respond and be heard. In the absence of such particulars, the law protects the dignity of every individual by not allowing such casual accusations. His constitutional petition is not proceed able in absence of personal grievance, under this doctrine.
Iqbal Ahmad Dhudhi V Federation of Pakistan 2014 CLC 1348
Due appraisal of evidence:
There was no misreading or non-reading of material evidence in the concurrent judgments and decrees of both lower courts. Concurrent findings of law and fact based on due appraisal of evidence petition, so petition is not proceed able.
Rao Abid Ali V Hina Jabbar 2011 MLD 373
Sarfraz V Additional District Judge 2017 YLR 1684
Interim Order:
Interim orders in family matters cannot be assailed through constitutional petition unless such order has attained characteristics of final order.
The impugned order was interim in nature and did not reflect the characteristic of final adjudication of the dispute. The writ petition is not maintainable.
Main Kashif Mehmood-Ul-Hassan V JFC, Karor 2010 MLD 692
Contractual rights :
The petitioner contended that he had donated four kanals of land to the Provincial Government on the condition that when a Government Girls School was constructed, Class-IV employees would be recruited based on his recommendations. He challenged the alleged breach of an undertaking/agreement between him and the Education Department. The petitioner further claimed that he submitted three applications for his family members in accordance with the agreement, but these were unsuccessful.
The agreement was deemed invalid and unlawful, as no government official could make such a deal for the recruitment of employees in a government department. The proper remedy for the petitioner was to file a civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction regarding any contractual rights. The High Court, in exercising its jurisdiction, would refrain from interfering in matters arising from contractual obligations.
Haji Abdul Jabbar V Provincial Government through Secretary Education Punjab Lahore 2010 MLD 315
Zonal Manager U.B.L and another V Mst. Parveen Akhtar PLD 2007 SC 298
Messrs Momin Motor Company V The Regional Transport Authority Dacca PLD 1962 SC 108
1968 SCMR 1136
Availability of remedy of appeal:
Landlord filed ejectment petition claiming violation of terms and conditions settled in the tenancy agreement by the tenant. Trial Court directed the tenant/defendant to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,08,000 as an arrears of rent for the last 19 months. Due to non payment of rent and violation of the terms and conditions of the rent deed, trial court passed interlocutory order. The impugned order could be challenged on appeal after the final disposal of the ejectment Constitutional petition in such case is not proceed able.
Rana Manzoor Ahmad V Muhammad Azeem 2010 YLR 1143
Since the remedy of appeal was available, the constitutional petition could not substitute an appeal and was dismissed at earliest stage for being without merit.
Muhammad Munir V Kaneez Fatima 2010 YLR 2691
Factual Controversies:
The High Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution, cannot enter into factual controversies or decide disputed questions of fact. Disputed factual controversies requiring detailed inquiry and evidence cannot be resolved under constitutional jurisdiction. It is a basic requirement for filing a writ to show clean legal right free from any kind of doubt and controversy. Correction of mutation in this context is considered a factual controversy.
Amir Sadar V State 2007 PCr.LJ 985
The province of east Pakistan V Kishti Dhar Roy PLD 1964 SC 636
Muhammad Yonis Khan V Government of N.W.F.P 1993 SCMR 618
Mannoo Industries LTD V Additional Secretary to the Government of Pakistan 1987 SCMR 1910
Zafar Abbas Adil V Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of pakistan, islambad 2008 CLC 593
Muhammad Ali V Government of Sindh 1986 CLC 1123
Umar Hayyat Khan V Inayatullah Butt 1994 SCMR 572
Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab Lahore V Ghulam Nabi PLD 2001 SC 415
Oral assertions:
Mere oral assertions cannot form the basis for interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is not maintainable in such case.
Khurshid Ahmad V Member ( Judicial-IV) Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore PLD 2008 Lahore 364
Consistent view of two lower courts:
Constitutional jurisdiction, being extraordinary, can be exercised in cases where injustice would result from the illegality, perversity, and unlawfulness of the judgments delivered by the lower courts. Findings of fact recorded by two lower courts cannot be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction. Writ petition is dismissed at earliest stage.
Ali Muhammad V Additional Session judge 2007 MLD 1096
Regulations of corporations:
Regulations framed by a corporation established under statute are not statutory rules enforceable by constitutional petition.
Muhammad Asghar Ch. v State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan 2007 PLC (C.S.) 138
Lack of Jurisdictional:
The Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to terms and conditions of service. Constitutional court lacks jurisdiction in such case.
Deputy Commissioner Sahiwal V Muhammad Boota Asif 2017 PLC (C.S.) 304
Khurshid Ahmad Khan V Bahauddin Zikriya University Multan Through Vice Chancellor and 3 others 2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 24
Fixation of interim maintenance allowance:
The fixation of interim maintenance allowance was neither found excessive nor arbitrary. Writ petition was dismissed at earliest stage.
Abdul Aziz V State 1996 MLD 1057
Sakhawat Hussain V Farzand Bibi 2004 MLD 1834
Commissioner Khair Pur Division V Ali Sher PLD 1971 SC 242
Application of Limine Control Doctrine in appellate domain:
Under the limine Control Doctrine, the superior courts have dismissed several appeals in limine in the appellate domain. Below are some instances:
Dismissal of appeal under limine control doctrine:
A Regular First Appeal can be dismissed in limine without summoning the record. It is not compulsory that a first appeal from an order must invariably be admitted and cannot be dismissed in limine. The admission of first appeals can be varied being based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the statute under which an appeal is filed. No single absolute rule of practice can be implemented on all cases.
Muhammad Ibrahim V Mst. Irshad Begum PLD 2002 SC 720
Under Order XLI, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Appellate Court can dismiss an appeal even without sending notice to the lower Court for transmission of the record and without notice to the respondent.
Hameed Ahmad V Gulab Khan 2006 SCMR 895
Sohail Hameed Butt V Mst. Nudrat Nafees 2008 SCMR 635
When the facts narrated in the impugned judgment are not disputed and the appeal can be decided based on the available record, summoning the record from the Trial Court is unnecessary.
Ashiq Ali V Mst. Zamir Fatima PLD 2004 SC 10
Legally barred appeals:
The Court is empowered to dismiss an appeal in-limine if it is barred by time, barred by any law, or does not involve disputed questions of law and facts
Muhammad Naeem V U.B.L 2003 SCMR 1790.
A time-barred appeal was dismissed in-limine on the ground of limitation, and the order was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Pakistan Coast Guard V Shareef Ahmad 2001 SCMR 2016
Absence of any questions of law and fact:
The Court can dismiss an appeal at earliest stage where the case is of a simple nature and no question of law or fact is involved for determination.
Shakeel Ahmad V Commandant 502 Central Workshop E.M.E., Rawalpindi 1998 SCMR 1970
Applicability of limine Control Doctrine in execution matters:
Judgement-debtor cannot be allowed to derail the proceeding of auction by submitting an evaluation report at his instance instead of arranging a buyer for the properties. Executing court dismissed his application. Judgement-debtor assailed said order in writ which is also dismissed in limine.
Humaira Mehboob V Summit Bank Limited 2023 CLD 525
Importance of dismissal in limine:
It is imperative to conduct a preliminary enquiry to reach an initial determination about factual basis of the writ petition. Absence of this perimeter results in admission of several unnecessary petitions which eventually got dismissed after considerable time and expenses.
Muhammad Mustafa V Excise and taxation Officer Lahore PLD 1992 SC 62
In National Judicial Policy 2009 it is candidly stated as under:
“Writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution should be fixed for ‘Katchi Peshi’ on the next day of institution and be disposed of as quickly as possible.”
Petitions against Bar Councils dismissed under Limine Control Doctrine:
The petitioner was aggrieved by orders issued by the Pakistan Bar Council and the Punjab Bar Council. The High Court could not interfere with the orders passed by these two Councils. The principles set forth by the Supreme Court in its judgments were binding on the High Court under Article 189 of the Constitution. The Bar Councils did not fall within the meaning of ‘persons’ as per Article 199(5) of the Constitution, meaning neither the Bar Councils nor any of their committees could be regarded as persons. Consequently, the Pakistan Bar Council and the Punjab Bar Council were not subject to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court applied the doctrine of Limine Control and dismissed the constitutional petition accordingly.
Sardar Qurban Ali Dogar V Pakistan Bar Council 2022 CLC 649