KARACHI: The Sindh High Court has said that no provision exists in the general and special laws in the province about blocking of computerised national identity card (CNIC) of any person in civil litigation.
A single-judge bench of the SHC headed by Justice Muhammad Hasan Akber also noted that after the enactment of 18th Constitutional Amendment, the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) has become a provincial subject, whereas no such provision was available in the CPC enforceable in the province of Sindh.
The bench made these observations while deciding two civil miscellaneous applications (CMAs) filed by Malik Ali Zain, one of the judgement debtors in a decree, against an order of the civil court concerned for directing the National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra) to block his CNIC.
The civil court had issued directive to Nadra in May last year on an application filed by the decree holder under Section 51 of the CPC for execution of the decree and impugned order was passed over non-service of notice or publication upon two judgement debtors.
Decides two pleas against order of a civil court, directs Nadra to unblock ID cards
After hearing the parties concerned and examining the record, the bench in its order noted that in order to justify blocking of CNICs of two judgement debtors, the lawyer for decree holder relied upon a provision (Order XXI Rule 77) of the CPC inserted through an amendment by the KPK Assembly, but after the 18th Amendment, the CPC has become a provincial subject and thus, reliance on such a provision, which was neither available nor enforceable in the present jurisdiction, was completely misplaced.
“Secondly, it is also to be noted that for execution of a decree under the banking jurisdiction, a complete mechanism is provided under the CPC, being the general law and under the Financial Institutions Ordinance, 2001 being special law applicable to this case, which provisions and mechanisms are required to be followed strictly in letter and spirit. Conspicuously, none of these two laws, as applicable in the province of Sindh, contain any specific provision for blocking of CNIC of a judgment debtor in satisfaction of a decree”, it added.
The bench also observed that reliance made upon Section 51 by the lawyer for decree holder was also misplaced as even before issuance of a warrant under Section 51 CPC certain mandatory pre-requisites must be fulfilled, however at the time of passing of the impugned order neither any of such pre-conditions were pleaded nor issuance of warrant was ordered.
“Rather, in my humble view, blocking of CNIC carries with it much severe implications as compared to issuance of a warrant of arrest”, it added.
It further noted that firstly, an incorrect address of applicant/ judgement debtor was provided in the execution application which prevented valid service upon him and for such mistake on part of the decree holder, the applicant should not be penalised.
“Secondly, the exact amount which, according to decree holder is to be recovered in final satisfaction of the decree, is yet to be brought on record of the court; thirdly, no provision exists in CPC or the Financial Institutions Ordinance, 2001 for blocking of CNIC of a judgment debtor”, it added.
Subsequently, the bench set aside the impugned order of civil court and directed Nadra to immediately restore the CNIC of judgement debtors.
Published in Dawn, April 19th, 2026
