KALIMULLAH & SONS vs THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, SHEIKH UPURA
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court concerning a money decree and the claim for interest on a sum found due to the petitioner, Kalimullah & Sons. The core legal question is whether the Provincial Government is liable to pay interest on money whose payment was withheld due to a restraint order issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view, finding the Provincial Government not liable for interest during the period it was prevented by the Custodian's restraint order from releasing the funds, is correct. The key principle laid down is that a party withholding payment strictly in compliance with a valid legal restraint order from a competent authority cannot be held liable for interest on the detained sum for the duration of the restraint.
- Whether the Provincial Government is liable for interest on a sum whose payment was withheld pursuant to a restraint order issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
- Does a communication regarding the non-evacuee nature of property constitute a formal release order lifting a prior restraint order?
1. CORNELIUS, C. J.-The subject-matter of this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court in an appeal from a money decree is interest on a sum found eventually to be due to the petitioner Kalimullah & Sons, of which the High Court has held that payment was withheld by the respon--dent, namely, the Provincial Government, under a restraint order issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
2. Mr: Bashir Zafar, for the petitioner attempted to snow that the Government was informed by the Custodian on dates in 1953, 1954 and 1955 that the money could be paid to Kahmullah & Sons. A copy of the second of these letters is contained in the grounds of this petition. It was written by the Director of Food Purchases to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, and contains a statement that the money due to Kalimullah & Sons was non-evacuee property, but at the same time, it asks for a release order, which was never issued. The contents of the other two letters were read to us from the paper-book of the appeal by learned counsel. Neither of them has the effect of a release order from the Custodian to the Provincial Government, to whom the restraint order was addressed.
3. The view taken by the High Court, viz. That the Provincial Government could not be held liable for interest on the money which they were prevented by the Custodian's order from paving to the petitioner, is plainly correct.
4. The petition is dismissed.