ALI BAIG, J.---The instant writ petition under Article 86(2) of Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order , 2018 has been preferred by the petitioner in this Court claiming therein that the respondents had hired different vehicles of the petitioner for internal security duty but the respondents have not paid rent of his vehicles and accordingly an amount amounting to Rs. 120.71 million is pending/outstanding against the respo ndents. The petitioner has also sought the following remedies:- a. Respondents may kindly be directed to make the payment of outstanding liabilities of petitioner without any delay . b. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 may kindly be directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 80 million for the satisfaction of decree in Suit No. 02/2010 and approximately 4 million in the Execution Petition No. 73/201 1 out of 120.71 million to respondent No. 5 for the purpose of satisfaction of decree. c. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted to meet the ends of justice.
2. A copy of the instant writ petition was provided to the respondents with the direction to furnish parawise comments in this Court. The respondents have filed the requisite parawise comments in this Court, wherein they have raised certain legal objections and have repudiated the averments/contents of writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner has outstanding liability amounting to Rs. 120.71 million against the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and they are bound to pay the outstanding liability to the petitioner but the respondents are reluctant to pay the outstanding liability/amount to the petitioner on one pretext or the other , therefore, by accepting this writ petition the respondents may be directed to pay the outstanding amount to the petitioner without further delay . The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondent No. 4 has written letters addressed to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for allocation of the disputed amount for payment of the said amount to the petitioner which was not considered by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 without any reason and justification.
4. On the other hand the learned Assistan t Advocate General vehemently controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the matter pertains to contractual obligation, therefore, this Court has lacked jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition and the petitioner can file a civil suit for recovery of his outstanding amount if any in the Civil Court, thus the instant writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly the petitioner has sought recovery of huge amount amounting to Rs. 120.71 million from the respondents with the plea that his vehicles were hired by the respondents to maintain law and order situation at Gilgit. The respondents through their parawise comments have repudiated the claim of the petitioner , thus intricate question of facts is involved in the matte r which cannot be resolved by this Court in its writ jurisdiction without recording of pro and contra evidence.
7. Moreover , it is settled principle of law that complicated question of facts pertain ing to contractual liability could not be dealt with by High Court/Chief Court in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 and Article 86(2) of Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order , 2018. The instant matter requires the extensive recording of evidence of both the parties, hence the Civil Court is only competent to do that. In this connection reference is made to reported judgments of the Hob'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in i. PLD 2002 SC 1068 , ii. 2000 SCMR 998 , iii. 2002 SCMR 59-553, iv . 1994 SCMR 2287 .
8. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition having no substance and force is hereby dismissed.
However , the petitioner would be at liberty to file a suit for recovery of his outstanding liabilities in the Court of competent jurisdiction. File.