Interlocutory order

It is for the Court to decide regarding maintainability of such a Constitutional petition, seized of the matter, to appreciate whether the (interlocutory) order is hitting root of the case and if the defect is not rectified, trial may become defective, and upon its conclusion Appellate Court has to remand the case to cure the defect

This would be sheer wastage of public time and may cause delay in outcome of final decision.

Suit for recovery of Rs.1,210,815,254.77/- was filed against the respondent on the premise that respondent availed Export Re-finance Facilities, whereas respondent filed suit for declaration, mandatory and prohibitory injunction, etc., against the bank

Both the matters were still sub-judice

Bank filed a criminal complaint against the respondent

Respondent had been fighting the case and recently got proceedings postponed until Court settled related banking suits

Trial Court had stayed the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint until the final disposal of said two suits

Bank objected to the stay of the proceedings and contended that criminal and civil proceedings could proceed simultaneously

Validity

Record showed that the witness of the applicant-bank, Branch Manager, claimed in his private complaint filed under S. 200 of Cr.P.C. that the respondent/accused obtained a significant loan from the bank under false pretenses and failed to repay it

Further, the respondent/accused's actions constituted a criminal offence under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Prima facie the bank had the remedy to pursue a civil lawsuit to recover the outstanding debt

However, it was yet to be determined if the accused's misrepresentations were intentional and caused harm to the bank

Offenses under Ss. 2(g)(ii) and (iii) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, were independent of civil liability for default

Said offences were triggered by specific actions of the customer, such as misusing funds or misappropriating collateral

Once civil liability for default is established, the offence of willfulness could be investigated

When the criminal charges depend on the outcome of the civil cases, proceeding with the criminal case before the civil cases are resolved could potentially harm the accused

Additionally, the amount owed, which is a crucial element in the criminal case, can only be determined in the civil Court and the criminal Court is divested from such determination

Criminal proceedings should be stayed until the related civil case is resolved

Criminal case should not proceed if it depends on the outcome of a civil case, especially when the same issues are involved in both cases to avoid potential prejudice to the accused if the criminal case are to be decided first

No prejudice shall be caused to the applicant bank if the banking suits proceed first to fix the liability on the respondent concerning liability for default and breach of obligations

Besides the respondent had not been exonerated from the charges, therefore judicial propriety demanded that the applicant bank be allowed to substantiate its allegations by adducing evidence; once liability was determined the criminal case could be revived for its culmination to its logical conclusion within reasonable time

When the witnesses claimed that the respondent/accused obtained a large loan from the bank under false pretenses and failed to repay it, such assertion needed adjudication first by this Court on the banking side in the Banking Suits and if the applicant bank succeeded in proving default on the part of the respondent, certainly the consequences shall follow, therefore interference at this stage was not called for

Petition was dismissed, accordingly.

There is no absolute bar on entertaining petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution against an order which is interlocutory in nature, if the same is coram non judice or without jurisdiction.

Appellant was aggrieved of order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby an ad-interim order passed in favour of respondent had continued despite information about his retirement was conveyed with exception to extension of such relief

Validity

Scope of appeal was limited to decide the nature and concomitant effects of the interim order operating in favour of respondent in the aforesaid context and keeping in view that it had allowed continuation of departmental proceedings against the respondent but had restrained the Authority from passing a final order on the basis of impugned show-cause notice without permission of the court

Unfortunately, for one reason or the other, the issue between the parties could not be laid to rest and meanwhile retirement age of the respondent had approached

No final order on account of interim order could be passed against the respondent, although as claimed the departmental proceedings had been concluded, and he was successfully reaping its benefits and evading consequences of the charge against him

At the stage, when the respondent was retiring next day and his suit had not progressed materially, it was not hard to discern that if the interim order was allowed to continue, it would not only be in disregard to its own terms permitting continuation of proceedings against the respondent but would result into miscarriage of justice

Respondent would emerge vindicated without any formal inquest by the court into merits of his case, his suit would likely become irrelevant/infructuous and the respondent would be permanently deprived and debarred from pressing the charges against the respondent before any forum for final adjudication

Appeal was allowed and the original interim order was modified in the terms, whereby the appellant was permitted to proceed with and pass an order, which could include a final order in the light of already held proceedings, if any

However, such proceedings and its outcome, if any, would be subject to a final decision to be made on the suit filed by the respondent

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Intervention by the Appellate Court at the interim stage of a suit is not barred completely, particularly when it is found inevitable to obviate miscarriage of justice and where apparently it is arbitrary, capricious and against well settled principle of law

No bar in law can be enforced against the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court to examine the nature of ad-interim order in the aforesaid context to pass an appropriate remedial order and preserve intrinsic nature of the controversy between the parties for a final adjudication.

Object of passing an interim/ interlocutory order is to maintain the status quo, the situation obtaining on the date when a party aggrieved by a certain action approaches the court, and to ensure that meanwhile no new development detrimental to rights of the parties is created, which may pose a hurdle in the way of deciding the case on merits.

Petitioner/husband claimed that at the time of his marriage father of respondent/wife presented written Nikahnama mentioning specific land measuring 06 Marlas in place of the already settled dower amount and on petitioner's resistance thereupon her father admitted and showed consent upon the already settled amount of dower as Rs.500,000/- but requested that at that time, it was not possible to execute new Nikahnama, therefore, in good faith the Nikah was duly completed; that land mentioned in Nikah was a crown land which could not be alienated; that respondent/wife left the house of the petitioner on her free will; that she filed a suit for recovery of dower which was contested by the petitioner; that on the date fixed for announcement of judgment, Family Court illegally framed additional issue to ascertain the market value of the land mentioned in Nikahnama instead of announcing the judgment; that Family Court illegally allowed application of respondent for summoning official for assessment of such value

Validity

High Court observed that petitioner had already filed 3 writ petitions: Firstly, seeking amendment in written statement, which was allowed accordingly; secondly, for framing additional issue, which was allowed and the Trial Court was directed to frame additional issue in view of amended written statement; thirdly, challenged certain orders of Family Court which was accepted by High Court providing an opportunity for recording evidence of witness of respondent and providing the same to the petitioner for cross-examination on the above witness

High Court could not invoke its writ jurisdictions in a routine matter, as such jurisdiction could only be invoked in extra-ordinary situation and in exceptional circumstances, and as such no eventuality was found

Constitutional Petition was not maintainable against the impugned interlocutory orders

Trial Court committed no illegality while summoning the official as witness to assess the market value of the land mentioned in Nikahnama because it was the only way for the Trial Court to ascertain the actual market value of that property

Petitioner was neither an aggrieved party within the meaning of Art.44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, nor had locus standi to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of High Court

Petitioner brought the factual controversy through the writ petition, which could not be determined without recording evidence

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Appellant was aggrieved of order passed by Single Judge of High Court recalling its earlier order passed at interim stage

Validity

Test to determine finality of an order was whether judgment or order had finally disposed of rights of parties

Finality was to be a finality in relation to the suit

If after the order, suit was alive in which rights of parties were yet to be determined, no appeal lied against such order

Order which decided an important and even vital issue was by itself not material

If decision on an issue put an end to suit, such order was a final one but if suit was still alive and was to be tried in ordinary way, no finality was attached to such order

Order passed by Single Judge of High Court in Constitutional petition was an interim or interlocutory order which did not have effect of disposing of entire case put up before High Court

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Single Judge of High Court as jurisdiction was barred under S.3(3) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners are sugar factories who were aggrieved of direction issued by Cane Commissioner to provide information regarding payment of 11% interest to sugarcane growers on late payments

Validity

No document or evidence was available to establish that through investigation/inquiry by Cane Commissioner, any right or privilege of petitioners was being jeopardized or infringed

Petitioners were anticipating that on the basis of inquiry a penal action would be taken against them

On such apprehension petitioners could not be allowed to maintain petition

Letter or pro forma issued by Cane Commissioner requiring information about payment of cane growers was the first step of inquiry/investigation

Decision of objections to inquiry proceeding was interlocutory order in the nature of a step toward a final order eventually to be passed by Cane Commissioner

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution was not maintainable against intermediate stages or steps of inquiry/investigation

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Judgment and decree was result of a compromise application jointly filed by parties and agreed terms were accurately reflected in resulting judgment and decree

Judgment debtor violated terms and conditions of decree and decree holder filed execution proceedings

Validity

Executing Court could not travel beyond the decree itself and there was no infirmity in the order passed by Executing Court which could merit interference

Consideration of appeal against any interlocutory order of Banking Court which had not disposed of entire case was precluded by S. 22(6) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Banking Court which was in due consonance with the law

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Constitutional petition against interim orders passed by courts below is not maintainable but such is not an absolute rule and case has to be dealt with keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances

Where courts below on face of it proceed beyond jurisdiction vested to them same can be checked on having been noticed at such early stage to set right path instead of waiting for final culmination of list.

No provision of appeal against the interlocutory orders had been provided within the purview of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Final order was subject to appeal under the provisions of S.54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Any detriment suffered by the applicants by virtue of impugned order, if any, could be agitated in an appeal against the final order in the proceedings

Interference of Court at such stage in presence of such remedy to the applicants was not merited

No extraordinary or exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated by the applicants to exercise jurisdiction in such regard

Evidence had already been recorded by the Trial Court

Order for inspection of acquired land at present stage would be futile

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court while hearing petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution does not sit as court of appeal and scope, on basis of which a challenge can be made, is very restricted

Petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution does not lie against an interlocutory order unless same is patently illegal or suffers from jurisdictional defect.

Interlocutory order is an order in which no final verdict is pronounced, but an ancillary order is passed with the intention to keep the same operative till final order/decision is passed in the pending matter.

"Interlocutory order" was an order in which no final verdict was pronounced but an ancillary order was passed with the intention to keep the same operative till final order/decision was passed in the pending matter.

Petitioners urged that impugned interlocutory order, passed by Chief Court, seemed to be without jurisdiction, and being nullity in the eyes of law, Supreme Appellate Court had power to set aside the same without going into the procedural hurdles and that Supreme Appellate Court had ample powers to ignore the procedural hurdles in the way of substantial justice

Validity

Impugned order was not an order without jurisdiction and nullity

Single Judge of Chief Court, having exercised his discretion properly, procedural hurdles could not be ignored

Rules of the Supreme Appellate Court did not allow the petition for leave to appeal against an interim order passed by Chief Court.

No remedy had been provided against the interlocutory order in Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005, but an appeal could only be filed against the final order.

Respondent moved an application under S.28 of Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005 for rejection of complaint on the ground of limitation which was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

No exact limitation had been provided for a consumer to lodge a claim as he had firstly to issue a written notice that a product or service was defective or faulty or the conduct of manufacturer or service provider was in contravention of provisions of Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005 and he should remedy the defects or give damages

Manufacturer or service provider had to reply the said notice within fifteen days after receipt of the same

Consumer Court should not entertain any claim unless the consumer or the Authority had given notice and provided proof that same was duly delivered but manufacturer or service provider did not respond the said notice

Period of thirty days for filing a claim by the consumer or the Authority had been provided from arising of cause of action

Consumer Court could extend the stipulated period in filing a claim up to sixty days from the expiry of warranty or guarantee period specified by the manufacturer or service provider and if no period was specified one year from the date of purchase of the product or providing of services

Period of limitation had to be calculated from the date when cause of action accrued

No remedy had been provided against the interlocutory order in Punjab Consumers Protection Act, 2005 but an appeal could only be filed against the final order

Appeal was not maintainable which was dismissed in circumstances.

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court cannot be invoked against every interlocutory order passed by a court, nor can every appeal against such order be converted into Constitutional petition

Such discretion and inherent powers are to be exercised by High Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and particularly in cases where gross and blatant violation of any of the provisions of law is apparent in the order assailed, for which no remedy is available to aggrieved party or where order assailed has been passed by court by exercising such jurisdiction which was not vested in it by law or where the court fails to exercise of jurisdiction which was vested in it by law.

When a statute did not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order, then the same could also not be challenged by way of constitutional petition, as it would amount to negating the provision of statute

Proper course for a party, in the circumstances, would be to wait for the final decision and then file appeal against the same, wherein it could also impugn the interlocutory order

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Such order did not have the effect of a final order, which had to be passed ultimately by the Family Court after recording evidence and assessing the paying capacity of the father/husband

Unless an order bears characteristics and effect of a final order, it could not be subjected to judicial scrutiny in proceedings under Art.199 of the Constitution.

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was a special statute and Civil Procedure Code, 1908, even if its provisions were not specifically ousted by any section of the Ordinance the same was still a general law so far as banking matters were concerned

Prima facie, the provisions of S. 22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, would prevail over the general law and sections providing for appeals and revisions under Civil Procedure Code, 1908, including O.XLIII, R. 1(r), S. 115 and S. 96, C.P.C.

If there was a bar for filing an appeal against an interlocutory order under S.22(6) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, then it could not be circumvented by filing appeals or revisions under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, even if orders of Banking Court had been made on application filed under any provision of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

High Court declined to circumvent the bar provided under S.22(6) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, by filing revision under S.115, C.P.C. or appeal under O.XLIII, R.1(r), C.P.C. or under any of the provisions and such revision or appeal were not maintainable

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Family Court, to avoid families front miseries, had jurisdiction under the law to pass order for payment of interim maintenance till final disposal of the suit

Petitioner who claimed to be real father of minor son was also duty bound to provide adequate maintenance to his son

Petitioner could not point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in interim order, which had been passed under relevant law and the same could not be assailed in Constitutional petition

When a statute had not provided appeal against interlocutory order, the same could not be challenged by way of Constitutional petition as it would amount to negate the provisions of statute

Appeal was a statutory right which had not been provided under West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, in relation to interim order passed by Family Court

Appropriate course for petitioner was to contest the suit and to wait for final order/ judgment of Family Court

If petitioner was not satisfied with the order, he could assail the judgment as well as interim order in appeal

High Court declined to interfere in interim maintenance fixed by Family Court

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Meaning.

As through order transfer of custody, though interim, was likely to take place which was in :elation to protection of the person during such intervening period

Making a child a rolling stone by various interim orders was also not appropriate for his personality and well being

Petition was maintainable in circumstances.

Court/authority, which has the power to pass final order also has the power to pass an interlocutory order.

Legal character of a person, once declared by Court would have effect of being applicable to entire world.

Legal character of a person, once declared by Court, would have effect of being applicable to entire world.

Such order was merely a tentative assessment and would not take place of findings to be recorded by Court on basis of evidence, which might be produced by parties.

Observations in interim orders are always tentative in nature.

Interlocutory order is an order in which no final verdict is pronounced, but an ancillary order is passed with intention to keep same operative till final decision.

Order in question, whereby petitioner's miscellaneous application was dismissed on merits in revisional jurisdiction, would be amenable to extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution.

Interlocutory order Interim order exhausts or becomes merged in final order made in case.