Messrs MULTICORP SA RE DE LAUSAME and others vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, F.I.D. and others
This matter arises from civil petitions directed against an interim order passed by the High Court in constitutional petitions, whereby the court merely summoned comments from the Deputy Attorney-General and adjourned the matter. The core legal question is whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 185 of the Constitution with an interim procedural order that does not adjudicate upon any controversy or dispute raised by the parties. The Supreme Court held that since the impugned order is purely interim in nature and does not amount to a judicial adjudication of the points raised, the court is not inclined to interfere at this stage. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 185 to interfere with interlocutory orders of the High Court that do not conclusively determine rights or directly resolve the matters in controversy.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere under Article 185 of the Constitution with an interim order of the High Court that does not adjudicate the controversy?
- Does calling for comments and adjourning a constitutional petition amount to a judicial adjudication of a dispute?
- Article 185, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, ACTG. C.J.---By this common judgment, we intend to decide Civil Petitions Nos.484, 486 and 487-L of 1999 involving identical questions of law and facts.
2. In the Constitutional petitions filed by the petitioners, learned Judge of High Court through the impugned order dated 6-4-1999 called the learned Deputy Attorney-General and handed over to him copies of the said petitions for filing comments and the cases were ordered to be listed on 19- 4-1999.
3. Learned Advocate-on-Record stated that he has been asked by Mr. M.N. .Beg, learned counsel for the petitioners through his Clerk to seek adjournment though neither the petitioners themselves nor the learned counsel contacted him.
4. We are not inclined to adjourn the cases. Through the order impugned in these petitions, the learned Judge of the High Court had not A 'decided in any manner directly or indirectly the controversy raised by the petitioners in the Constitutional petitions.
5. The order is interim in nature and does not amount even to a judicial adjudication of any dispute or point raised in the Constitutional petitions, therefore, in our discretion, under Article 185 of the Constitution, we are not inclined to interfere in the same at this stage.
6. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed and .