Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: World Health Organization, (Who), Islamabad VS Respondent: Muhammad Ansar Iqbal
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Amin-Ud-Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail Title: World Health Organization, (Who), Islamabad vs Muhammad Ansar Iqbal Case No.: Civil Petition No. 1840 of 2016 Date of Judgment:2021-12-15 Reported As: 2022 SCMR 752 Result: Appeal allowed
Judgment ORDER AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---W e have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional Attorney General present before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that actually the matter has been settled out of the Court and the plaintif f/respondent has withdrawn his suit on 10.12.2016. The only question for which this Court has been approached is that the learned High Court has wrongly applied the State Immunity Ordinance No.VI of 1981 and section 4 thereof. The case of the petitioner before the trial court as well as High Court and this Court is that the civil court was having no jurisdiction to enterta in and try the suit against the petitioner , under the contract between the parties in the light of Clause 16 of General Conditions of Contract which contains amicable settlement between the parties in accordance with the practice and through conciliation in accordance with the conciliation rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL") and through the mode of arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, therefore, the civil court was having no jurisdiction. 2. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The stance of the petitioner holds ground that the law has incorrectly been applied while dismissing the petition filed before the High Court is correct in the facts and circumstances of this case. The determination of scope, limits and extent of diplomatic and state immunity clauses of various statut es need further deliberations. However , since the matter between the parties stand resolved out of court, it would become an academic exercise to give any finding on the issue of state/diplomatic immunity . In this view of the matter we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. We set aside the judgment passed by the High Court and hold further that the said judgm ent shall have no precedential value in term of Article 201 of the Constitution.