2006 PLP 1574 (CLC)

GULZAR AHMED, J.

By this application, plaintiff has sought extension of interim orders dated 30-6-2001 and 7-1-2002 which have continued until 16-1-2006 but were not extended. Similar was the position on 1-2-2006. It appears that vide order dated 30-6-2001 interim stay was granted to the plaintiff on furnishing bank guarantee for the sum demanded by the Customs Authorities till next date. On 7-1-2002 there was an order of adjourning the matter to 17-1-2002, till then the defendant shall not encash bank guarantee. Admitted position is that these interim orders have continued up till 16-1.2006 on which date the matter was adjourned as the counsel for the plaintiff was reported to be busy before another Bench. On 1-2-2006 again the interim orders were not extended and the matter was adjourned on the ground that defendant counsel is not well. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 being C.M.A. 4589 of 2006 in which the plaintiff has prayed for direction to the defendant for de-blocking of bill of entries noted therein. After hearing the counsel for the parties on 15-6-2006 an order was passed whereby issues were framed and as the parties counsel have agreed that no oral evidence is required to be recorded, by consent the matter was fixed on 11-7-2006 for hearing of final arguments. Subsequently, the plaintiff has filed this application. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have extensively argued the matter and have cited judgments in support of their contentions. The plaintiff counsel, has stated that it was through bona fide error that the request for extension of interim order was not made on the said two dates. On the other hand the counsel appearing for the defendants have opposed the application contending that the extension of the interim order cannot be made for the reason that the interim order is only effected for a period of six months in terms of Rule 4-A of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. and that similar principle will apply as are provided in sub-Article 4-A of Article 199 of the Constitution. The learned Standing Counsel has also argued that the reason for non-extension of the interim order has argued before the Court is even not mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of this application. After considering, the arguments of the learned counsel. I do not feel inclined at this stage to go into the niceties of their respective contentions of the learned counsel for the reason, as noted above the matter is already fixed for final arguments on 11-7-2006 and following the principle as laid down in the case of Raja Tilat Mehmood v. Ismat Ahteshamul Haq 1999 SCMR 2215, the interim orders are extended till 11-7-2006. It may be noted that if the suit is not proceeded on this date for any reason attributable to the plaintiff or his counsel, the interim order passed in this case will stand automatically vacated. At this stage Mr. Raja M. Iqbal, learned counsel for the Customs Department has pointed out that the Customs Department has recovered an amount of Rs.78.73 million towards its dues and he has no objection if the bank guarantee furnished by the plaintiff to the extent of this amount is allowed to be discharged. Accordingly it is ordered that to the extent of Rs.78.83 million which have been recovered by the Customs Authorities, the bank guarantee will stand discharged. The application in the above terms stand disposed of. H.B.T.I-15/K Order accordingly.