MUHAMMAD JAVAID IQBAL vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
This case concerns a dispute over telephone bills where the petitioner, Managing Director of a newspaper, challenged initial bills and sought a perpetual injunction against their recovery and disconnection of services. An application for a temporary injunction resulted in a compromise where the petitioner furnished security for the disputed amounts and "any future amount." Subsequently, the petitioner defaulted on future bills, leading to disconnection of services. The petitioner then sought contempt proceedings and restoration of telephones, arguing the compromise covered future bills. The trial court ordered restoration, but the Additional District Judge reversed this, holding that the compromise order could not extend to matters "extraneous to the suit," such as future bills. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's civil revision. The Supreme Court endorsed the view that an interlocutory order, even if based on a settlement, cannot operate on matters outside the scope of the original suit, thus upholding the disconnection for non-payment of future bills.
- Can a compromise order for a temporary injunction, made in a suit challenging past liabilities, extend to future liabilities not explicitly part of the original suit?
- Whether an interlocutory order, even if founded on a settlement between parties, can operate on matters extraneous to the suit?
- Can a utility service be disconnected for non-payment of bills incurred subsequent to the filing of a suit challenging earlier bills, even if a compromise order for a temporary injunction was made?
1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-The petitioner is Managing Director of the "Daily Market Report" a newspaper, being published from Lyallpur. For purposes of his business he has installed three telephones Nos.
2. 6332, 6336 and 6832 for the use of which he received bills for Rs.3,845.75, Rs.1,078.34 and Rs.11,497.60 respectively. He protested against these bills characterising them as false. When the department threatened to disconnect his telephones he filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the Government from recovering the aforesaid amounts and from disconnecting the three telephones for the non-payment of the said amounts. Alongwith the plaint he moved an application for temporary injunction against the recovery of the aforesaid bills and threatened disconnections of the telephones during the pendency of the suit. The application for inter--locutory injunction ended into a compromise on the basis of the statement made by the Advocate appearing for the Government, according to which the petitioner was to furnish security for the payment of the amounts in dispute and "any future amount" for the use of the three telephones, subject to the condition that if the security was not furnish d by the specified date, the application for interlocutory injunction all stand dismissed. On behalf of the department, its counsel agreed to the above settlement and the trial Court disposed of the application accordingly.
3. It is not denied that the petitioner furnished the requisite security on 30-5-1970. He, however, defaulted in payment of the bills for the three telephones for the period subsequent to the suit. As a result, the three tele--phones were disconnected. This led the petitioner to file an application for proceedings in contempt of Court against the Government and for the restoration of the telephones on the ground th4t in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he was not liable to pay even the future bills. The prayer for proceedings in the contempt of the Court against the Government was refused. However, the learned trial Court directed restoration of the three telephones.
4. The respondent's appeal was accepted on 8-11-1971 by learned Additional District Judge who took the view that the order for maintenance of status quo even if founded on settlement between the parties could not operate as respects matters "extraneous to the suit" and that any dispute with regard to the future bills not being a subject-matter of the suit were extraneous to the suit. The petitioner filed a civil revision against the order of the learned Additional District Judge which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, vide order dated 1-12-1972.
5. We also endorse the observation in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order that if the petitioner clears off the arrears with respect to the period subsequent to the institution of the suit then the Government will consider the desirability of restoring the three telephones in accordance with the rules bearing on the subject.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mst. SALMA JAWAID AND 3 OTHERSs vs S. M. ARSHAD AND 7 OTHERS 1983 PLD Karachi 303
- PAKISTAN SERVICES LTD., HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL. KARACHI vs AFZAL 1983 CLC 2083