ITTEFAQ SUGAR MILLS LTD. and others vs Mian MIRAJ-UD-DIN and 21 others
This matter concerns eight petitions for leave to appeal filed against interlocutory orders passed by the Company Judge of the Lahore High Court. The impugned orders directed the petitioners to furnish specific information regarding the shares held by the petitioners in the company, including any encumbrances and the precise location of such shares. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions on the ground of non-maintainability. The Court held that the impugned orders were merely interlocutory in nature and did not adversely affect the rights or interests of the petitioners, thereby providing no valid cause of grievance to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court noted that the orders were subject to notice, and the petitioners retained the right to raise objections regarding the requisition of information before the High Court, which would be adjudicated on merits. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to discuss the underlying facts or arguments, as the petitions were premature and lacked the requisite grievance to warrant appellate interference.
- Is an interlocutory order directing a party to furnish information appealable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a party invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court against an order that does not adversely affect their rights or interests?
- Must a party raise objections to an interlocutory order before the High Court before seeking leave to appeal in the Supreme Court?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---These eight petitions for leave to appeal (No,921-L to 927/L and 929- L of 1994) are directed against the similar interlocutory orders dated 18-8-1994 passed by the learned Company Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Original Petitions Nos.65, 68, 73, 74, 76, 78, 84 and 69 of 1994 respectively, which read as under:-- "(1) Notice for 25-8-1994.
(2) In the meantime the respondents are hereby directed to furnished before this Court the full information as to the shares of the petitioners in the Company and in case they have been encumbered in any way, the nature of encumbrance and the precise location of the shares.
(3) To come up on 25-8-1994."
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we propose to dismiss these petitions on the short ground of non-maintainability, so, it would be unnecessary and sheer waste of time to mention the facts of the case or discuss the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Plain reading of the impugned orders will show that the present petitioners have simply been asked to furnish some information, The orders have not, in any manner, adversely affected the interest/right of the present petitioners, so, no cause of grievance is available to them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the impugned orders were not only interim order but were also subject to notice to the present petitioners. The petitioners can raise the objection, if any, against the requisition of information from them, before the High Court, which of course would be attended to and disposed of on merits.
Cited by 1 case
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN 1997 PLC(CS) 971