SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.--- By means of this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to enforce contractual obligations arising out of agreement dated 28.11.2017.
2. The facts of the case, in short, are that vide agreement deed dated 28.11.2017, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents for construction of a petrol pump, general store, bakery, tire-shop and service station at his own expenses, thereafter, to carry out business therein at the payment of rent @ Rs.50000/- per month, however, after completion of construction the respondents backed out and refused to rent out the shops etc to him, thus violated the terms and conditions of agreement.
3. Being aggrieved of the act of the respondents, the petitioner filed this. Constitutional petition against the respondents.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are under legal obligation to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties.
He next argued that the petitioner has no adequate or alternate remedy under the law except, to seek his relief through Constitutional petition. He lastly contended that even contractual obligation can be enforced through Writ Petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record with his valuable assistance.
6. It may be noted that through this petition, the petitioner has sought enforcement of contractual obligations arising out of the contract executed between the parties. It is now settled that the contractual rights, commitments, undertaking and obligations have to be enforced through Courts of ordinary jurisdiction, which should not be interfered with by the High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, especially in the matters arising out of a contractual obligations. In this context we are fortified by the judgments reported as "Ashraf Ali Akanda v. Abdul Awal, Deputy Magistrate and Special officer (Aboriginal) Net-rokona Camp and others" (PLD 1968 Dacca 962), wherein it was held as under: - "Breach of contract or failure to honour obligation arising out of agreement cannot be decided by High Court in Writ Jurisdiction".
In this context reliance can also be placed on the cases reported as `Millat Tractors and others v.
Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 Lahore 68), Ahmad Hassan v. Pakistan Machine Tools Factory (1990 CLC 2007) Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation v. Pak WAPDA (PLD 1986 Quetta 181), "Sufi Muhammad Ramzan, Contractor, Municipal Committee, Mianwali v. Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others" (PLD 1987 Lahore 262).
7. In such like situation the normal remedy to the law being a suit for contractual rights and obligations would be availed instead of filing petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
8. In this behalf reference may also be made to the cases reported as "Nizamuddin and another v.
Civil Aviation Authority and 2 others" (1999 SCMR 467), "The State of Pakistan v. Mehrajuddin" (PLD.
1959 SC (Pak) 147), "Raghvendra v. State of Vindhuja Pradesh" (AIR 1952 Vindh Pradesh 13), "Muhammad Din and Sons Shandara Mills, Lahore v. The Province of West Pakistan and 5 others (PLD 1969 Lahore 823), "Ahmad Hassan v. Pakistan Machine Tools Factory" (1990 CLC 2007), "Muzaffar ud Din v. Chief Settlement Commission" (1968 SCMR 1136), "The Chandpur Mills Ltd. v. The District Magistrate Tippera and (2) The Province of East Pakistan (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 267), "Messrs Momin Motor Company v. The Regional Transport Authority Dacca" (PLD 1962 SC 108) and "Abdul Rahim v. Town Committee" (1985 CLC 2805).
9. For the reasons stated above, we find no justification for exercising discretionary and extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in the matter in hand. Consequently, the writ petition being not maintainable stands dismissed in LIMINE.