FAREEDULLAH KHAN vs PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary C&W Department Government of Balochistan arts

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

FAREEDULLAH KHAN VS PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary C&W Department Government of Balochistan arts. 185(3) & 199---Contractual dispute---Security deposit, forfeiture of---Executing court not to travel beyond the scope of decree---Principle---High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction making factual inquiry in the matter and granting relief releasing security amount which relief was neither granted nor even prayed for before the Trial Court---Legality---Facts in brevity were that the father of the petitioners was awarded a contract in 1986 for construction of the Balochistan High Court building but due to alleged unsatisfactory performance he was blacklisted by the C&W Department and his security deposit was forfeited---Being aggrieved, father of petitioners filed a suit which was decreed to the extent of declaring him an "a" class contractor and setting aside the blacklisting---His subsequent execution application for recovery of the forfeited security was dismissed by the executing court on the premise that suit to the extent of release of security amount was not decreed---During appeal before the High Court, the contractor died, and his legal heirs (petitioners) were impleaded---The High Court converted the matter into a Constitutional petition, and after summoning the record and probing into the matter, partly allowed the petitioner by ordering the C&W Department to pay Rs. 20,12,668/- to the legal heirs from the security deposit, leading the petitioner to seek recovery of the full Rs. 68,67,668/- on account of security deposit from the C&W Department by challenging the partial payment order---Pivotal question before the Supreme Court was as to "Whether the petitioners were entitled to recover the full security amount withheld by the C&W Department despite the Trial Court's decree not expressly granting such relief, and whether the High Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction was justified in ordering partial payment of Rs. 20,12,668/- on account of security release after conducting factual inquiry in the matter?"---Held: a perusal of the prayer clause set out in the plaint reflected that the petitioners had not made any prayer for release of security amount---The order for release of the security amount by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction was objected to by the C&W Department stating that it had already been released to the contractor---Factual controversy raised by the parties could only be resolved after recording pro and contra evidence through a civil suit---The High Court mainly keeping in view exigency in the matter involved, decided to get such matter examined by summoning official record, carrying out full-fledged inquiry in presence of the parties, which exercise could not have been done in writ jurisdiction---The scope and ambit of the proceedings before the High Court, in the present case, was limited to the extent of judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the order passed by the executing court dismissing the execution application on the ground that the claim for recovery of the security amount mentioned in execution application was not decreed in favour of the contractor (father of petitioners)---The High Court had not attended to any of the prayers and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and order of the executing court, and proceeded to decide the case after making a detailed inquiry---Thus, High Court exceeded its authority by passing the impugned judgment, which called for interference---High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction could not entertain matters requiring factual inquiry which was the prerogative and domain of the Trial Court---Findings, conclusions and directions issued to the C&W Department for payment of security amount to the petitioners was beyond the Constitutional mandate and authority of the High Court---Impugned judgment was set aside and the petition filed by the legal heirs of the contractor seeking release of remaining security was dismissed and leave was refused, whereas, petition filed by the Department was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

FAREEDULLAH KHAN vs PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary C&W Department Government of Balochistan arts — 2025 SCMR 2081 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR