P L D 2000 Peshawar 7 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, J.‑‑M/s. PEL Appliances (Pvt.) Limited, through its Manager (P&A) Khalid Saeed Khan, Industrial Estate, Gadoon Amazai, Swabi, has preferred the present petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for a declaration that the impugned orders of respondent No.2 dated 6‑8‑1996 and of respondent No.3 dated 4‑1.1‑1996, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect and with a prayer that respondent No.4 be directed to continue the criminal proceedings against respondent No. l and to restore the case property to the petitioner.

2. According to the averments of the petition respondent No. 1, Abdul Waheed Khan was serving as General Manager under the petitioner in a factory in Gadoon Amazai, Swabi with effect from 16‑3‑1992 and he‑ was provided a Sunny Nissan Car bearing Registration No.LOG 5485, two Air‑Conditioners, one Refrigerator and one Gyser as benefits for his personal use during his service period under the petitioner. The terms and conditions of his appointment are Annexure ' A' .

3. The services of respondent No. l were dispensed with by the petitioner on 22‑7‑1993 vide Annexure 'B' and he was asked to settle his accounts vide Annexure 'C' on 9‑7‑1994 with the Firm and to return the aforesaid items, but he postponed the delivery of the said items with a request to retain the car for his personal need till he purchases a car for himself, as his wife was ailing and he was to use the same for her duty. His request to this effect is Annexure 'D' Respondent No. l was repeatedly approached to deliver the aforesaid items to the petitioner but he refused to do so as a result a complaint was filed by the petitioner against him on 22‑11‑1995 in Police Station Gadoon Amazai, vide F.I.R. No.316 under section 408, P.P.C. Confronted with this situation respondent No.l instituted two suits on 3‑1‑1996 and 21‑5‑1996 against the petitioner in the Court of respondent No.4, one for the settlement of accounts and the second for a declaration that respondent No.l had a right to retain the property of the petitioner till the decision of his suits and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner not to interfere with the property in possession of the defendant and for the recovery of Rs.5 million as damages for wrongful termination of his service. Respondent No. l on 8‑7‑1996 submitted an application to respondent No.2 for staying the criminal proceedings initiated against him in case F.I.R No.316 on the ground that civil suits in respect of the same cause of action were pending in the Civil Courts as such till their decision the criminal proceedings be stayed. Respondent No.2, however, on 6‑8‑1996 accepted the application of respondent No. l and adjourned the criminal case sine die till the decision of the civil suits and consigned the record. Having been aggrieved of the aforesaid orders the petitioner preferred a revision petition before respondent No.3 it was dismissed on 4‑11‑1996 with an observation that both the civil suits and the criminal proceedings were before the same Presiding Officer‑respondent and if the concerned Court deems fit may re‑open the issue. The petitioner then was constrained to file the present petition, claiming that the Criminal and Civil Courts are two different forums and are independent of each other, as such the criminal proceedings could not be kept in abeyance.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

5. The record suggests that respondent No. 1 was appointed by the petitioner only for a short period and according to the terms and conditions of his service Annexure 'A' his services could be terminated without assigning any reasons or by giving notice of three months in writing by either party. The record further suggests that respondent No. l had no lien for the facilities provided to him during the tenure of service under the petitioner. His acknowledgment of the facilities vide Annexure 'E' would suggest that he had requested the petitioner to retain the Sunny Nissan Car for the urgent need of attending his ailing wife and had no intention to retain the same for a single day beyond he purchases a car for himself.

6. The instant petition was admitted for full hearing on 15‑5‑1997 on the proposition that criminal proceedings could not be adjourned sine die pending civil litigations specially when the civil suit was designed to counter a criminal case registered earlier and reliance was placed on 1972 S C M R page

85. Notices were issued to respondent No. l for his attendance in this Court, he was avoiding his appearance, however, he appeared upon the issuance of a bailable warrant against him. The proposition laid down in PLD 1968 S C page 281 and 1972 SCMR page 85 would support the contentions of the petitioner that the ,p, counter‑civil claim brought by respondent No.l was with the intention to delay the criminal case brought against him by the petitioner.

7. We are, therefore, of the considered view, that respondent No.2 could not stay the criminal proceedings and adjourned the case sine die, as the two matters are pending before the two different forums and are independent of each other. The findings of the Criminal Court are not binding or even relevant for adjudication in a civil suit pending in a Civil Court. The perusal of the order- sheets of the Civil Court in two suits would suggest that no progress has been made in the aforesaid two matters for the early decision of the case by the two Courts below. We feel that there being no lien of respondent No. l on the Sunny Nissan Cat No. LOG 5485 which is in possession of respondent No. l shall forthwith be recovered from him by the Registrar of this Court alongwith its, keys today, who should hand over, the same to the trial Court (respondent No.2) with a direction that he shall hand over the same to its lawful owner on proper Superdari till the decision of the criminal case. The petition is accepted and the orders of respondent No.2 dated 6‑8‑1996 and respondent No.3 dated 4‑11‑1996 are set aside. Our observations aforesaid shall not prejudice the cases of respondent No. l pending in the two Courts below. However, the subordinate Courts are directed to positively decide all the pending cases between the parties within four months from this order under intimation to the Registrar of this Court. N.H.Q /406/P Petition accepted.