Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Before Tanzil‑ur‑Rehman, J
THE PRINCE GLASS WORKS LTD.‑Plaintiff
versus
NATIONAL BEVERAGES LTD. AND ANOTHER‑Defendants
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4808 in Suit No. 339 of 1986, decided on 18th November, 1986.
(a) Establishment of the Office of Wafaqt Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983)--
‑‑ S. 9 ‑ Object, scope and jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib Wafaqi Mohtasib's Order 1983 is a special statute enacted for taking speedy action in order to redress and rectify injustice done to a person through maladministration ‑ :Aohtasib's jurisdiction, held, extends to a Ministry, Division, Department, Commission or Office of Federal Government, a Statutory Body or other Institution established or controlled by Federal Government‑Such jurisdiction, however, does not include Supreme Court, Supreme Judicial Council or a High Court.‑[Jurisdiction].
(b) Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mobtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983 )--
‑‑ S. 9‑Complaint lodged with Mohtasib prior to filing of suit- Ouster of jurisdiction whether attracted after filing of suit‑Where complaint was lodged with Mohtasib prior to filing of suit in High Court, such matter could not be regarded as sub judice in Court- Provisions of section 9 of the Order ousting jurisdiction of Mohtasib, held, would not be attracted to a complaint filed before Mohtasib prior to institution of suit in High Court.
(c) Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983)‑--
‑‑ S. 29‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 Action taken or order passed by Wafaqi Mohtasib ‑ Injunction against‑Jurisdiction of High Court or other authority to question the validity of any action taken, intended to be taken, order made or anything done, or purported to have been taken, made, or done under Order 1983 was barred‑Court, has no jurisdiction to grant injunction or stay or to make any interim order in relation to any proceedings before Mohtasib, in a matter falling within his jurisdic tion‑Application for grant of interim injunction against Order of Mohtasib being without jurisdiction was dismissed by High Court.
E. A. Nomani for Appellant.
I. H. Zaidi and Muhammad Saleem for Defendants Nos 1 and 2.
Date of hearing : 18th November, 1986.
This application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 & 2, C. P. C. for restraining and prohibiting the plaintiff from proceeding and/or pressing their claim, before the Federal Ombudsman, Pakistan, arises out of the suit for recovery of Rs. 22,83,109.69, being unpaid price of goods sold and d9livcredt inclusive of interest/mark up, as alleged,
Mr. Zaidi, whose argument is adopted by Mr. Muhammad Saleem, in support of the above application submits that the Wafaqi Mohtasib has no jurisdiction to examine and decide the matter in dispute as it is sub judice before this Court. Reliance is placed on proviso (a) to subsection (1) of section 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983. Relevant portion of section 9 reads asunder :‑----
"Section 9. Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Mohtasib.‑(1) The Mohtasib may on a complaint by an aggrieved person, on a reference by the President, the Federal Council or the National Assembly, as the case may be, or on a motion of the Supreme Court or a High Court made during the course of any proceedings before it or of his own motion, undertake any investigation into any allegation of maladministration on the part of any Agency or any of its officers or employees;
Provided that the Mohtasib shall not have any jurisdiction to investigate or inquire into any matters which‑--
(a) are sub judice before a Court of competent jurisdiction or judicial tribunal or board in Pakistan on the date of the receipt of a complaint, reference or motion by him ; or
(b)-------
(c) -------
(2)--------
(3)--------.
(4)--------
On the other hand Mr. Nomani sumbits that this Court or for that matter any other authority has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction or stay or make any interim order in relation to any proceedings before the Mohtasib. Reliance is placed by him on section 29 of the said Order, which reads as follows :‑
"29.‑Bar of jurisdiction.‑No Court or other authority shall have jurisdiction ‑
(1) to question the validity of any action taken, or intended to be taken, or order made, or anything done or purporting to have been taken, made or done under this Order ; or
(2) to grant an injunction or stay or to make any interim order in relation to any proceedings before, or anything done or intended to be done or purporting to have been done by, or under the orders or at the instance of the Mohtasib".
Wafaqi Mohtasib's order is a special Statute enacted for taking speedy action in order to redress and rectify an injustice, done to a person through mal‑administration. The Mohtasib's jurisdiction extends to a Ministry, Division, Department, Commission or office of the Federal Government or a statutory corporation or other institution established or controlled by the Federal Government but does not include the Supreme Court, Supreme Judicial Council or a High Court. To appreciate the submission of Mr. Zaidi, the date of the receipt of complaint made by the plaintiff to the Wafaqi Mohtasib will be a terminal point so as to decide the question of jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib as provided in section 9 quoted above. Mr. Nomani invites my attention to Paragraph No. 2 of the counter‑affidavit tiled by him and submits that the complaint was filed before the Mohtasib as long back as L3‑7‑1985, whereas the above suit has been filed in this Court on 22‑4‑1986. It is now an admitted position between the parties that the complaint was lodged with the Mohtasib prior to the filing of the above suit in this Court, and so it cannot be said that the matter was sub judice in the Court before it was taken to the Wafaqi Mohtasib. As such, the provisions of proviso (a) to section 9 of the Order ousting the jurisdiction of the Mohtasib do not seem to be attracted. Furthermore, section 29 of the Order bars the jurisdiction of the Court or other authority to question the validity of any action taken or intended to be taken, or order made, or anything done or purporting to have been taken, made or done under the Order or to grant an injunction or stay or to make any interim order in relation to any proceedings before the Mohtasib, in a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Mohtasib.
The application is therefore, dismissed.
A. A. Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer