INDUS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Industries and Production

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

INDUS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Industries and Production S. 9 & O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 10-A & 199---Trial Court declining interim injunction and adjourning the suit sine die---Premise---Matter pending before the High Court for implementation of order challenged before the Trial Court---Legality---Pendency of proceedings before another forum without specific restraining order does not bar the Trial Court from exercising its jurisdiction---Jurisdiction of Civil Court against orders passed by public functionaries, invoking of---Scope---Facts of the matter were that the appellant had booked the subject vehicle for respondent No. 4,but after price revisions, the revised payment was not made by respondent No. 4, leading to cancellation of the booking and preparation of refund cheques which respondent No. 4 did not collect, instead he initiated proceedings before multiple forums, including the Wafaqi Mohtasib, Consumer Court, and the High Court, ultimately obtaining an order from respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production) directing the appellant company to deliver the vehicle along with compensation at KIBOR+3% for delayed delivery---The appellant challenged this through a civil suit and sought injunctive relief which was declined through the impugned order on the premise that a constitutional petition for implementation of order passed by respondent No. 2 was pending---Held: It was an undisputed fact that in the said Constitutional petition no restraining order was passed by the High Court against the proceedings of the civil suit---Trial Court instead of independently applying its judicial mind to the injunction application considered the mere pendency of writ proceedings as sufficient ground to adjourn the suit sine die---Such reasoning was clearly erroneous because pendency of proceedings before another forum without a specific restraining order did not bar the Trial Court from exercising its jurisdiction vested under the law---In the present case, the appellant company filed civil suit challenging validity of order passed by respondent No. 2 for delivery of vehicle to respondent No. 4 which it claimed was without jurisdiction---Conversely, writ petition before the High Court was filed by respondent No. 4 merely to seek implementation of the same order---Thus, scope and nature of two proceedings were distinct; the civil suit questioned the legality of the order, while the writ petition sought its enforcement---Trial Court, therefore, erred in presuming that pendency of writ petition ousted its jurisdiction---When an administrative order affected the civil rights and was alleged to be passed without jurisdiction then the remedy of filing of civil suit could not be denied---By adjourning the suit sine die indefinitely the Trial Court practically deprived the appellant company of its right to seek judicial redress---Such an approach amounted to denial of justice, contrary to Arts. 4 & 10-A of the Constitution which guaranteed the right to be treated in accordance with law and the right to fair trial and due process---Trial Court failed to consider the three vital ingredients for granting the interim injunction and declined the interim relief request on the basis of pendency of writ petition---Such an approach rendered the impugned order a non-speaking order---Impugned order was not a decision on merits of injunction application but a refusal to exercise jurisdiction based only on pendency of writ proceedings---Such relinquishment of onus not only rendered the order legally unsustainable, but also violated the appellant's right to have its grievance adjudicated---Constitutional petition seeking implementation of order passed by respondent No. 2 was not maintainable as the adequate and efficacious remedy lay before the civil court where the order was under challenge---Constitutional Petition filed by respondent No. 4 was dismissed and appeal filed by the appellant company was allowed, in circumstances.

INDUS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Industries and Production S — 2025 CLC 1951 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC