1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---A suit for specific performance on the basis of sale agreement, dated 20-4-1992, was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad, by the Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution (EOBI) against Mst. Shaista etc. The subject-matter of the suit was a bungalow, situated at Mansehra Road, Abbottabad, and the alleged sale price was disclosed to have been rupees 2.8 million. Apparently the vendors subsequently sold such bungalow to Javed lqbal and others (defendants Nos.5 to 14), the petitioner here got the mutation attested on 11-11-1993. The defendants last mentioned submitted their written statement in the suit on 23-11-1995 wherein inter alia, they pleaded that the suit could not be proceeded with as plaintiff-EOBI had already moved the Collector, land acquisition, Abbottabad, for compulsory acquisition of the bungalow and also deposited a sum of rupees 3.7 million as part of the compensation price. It was further maintained that an application for eviction E.O.B.I.,from the premises had also been moved before the Controller, Abbottabad Cantonment. The plaint was sought to be rejected on such plea. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad, per order, dated 25-3-1996, rejected the plaint through what the High Court has termed as a very cursory order. He found that as the Collector had already initiated acquisition proceedings at the behest of E.O.B.I. The suit could not proceed before the Civil Court.
2. ' On the hand, Javed Iqbal and others, simultaneously, moved the Commissioner, Hazara Division, against the acquisition and that officer per order, dated 26-2-1995 directed the Collector in the undermentioned terms:-- "I feel that the exercise of powers under section 17 are not warranted. Besides, civil litigation at different forums is also in progress. Under humanitarian grounds as well as to meet the ends of natural justice it seems fit that the acquisition proceedings be held in abeyance till the decision of civil Court, while the acquiring department may be advised to acquire less expensive land."
3. ' The Collector responded by stopping the proceedings for acquisition of the property.
4. ' Correspondingly, the defendants also moved for eviction of the E.O.B.I. From the premises where the proceedings were reported to the High Court to be in progress.
5. ' In such circumstances, the E.O.B.I. Preferred a Constitutional Petition before the High Court. The High Court, examining the controversy found that Javed Iqbal and others were guilty of approbation or reprobation inasmuch as if the Collector has stopped the acquisition proceedings the plaint in the suit filed by E.O.B.I. Could not be got rejected on the basis of such acquisition proceedings. The High Court came to the conclusion that neither the plaint could be rejected in the civil suit nor the Collector could have been required to stop the acquisition proceedings. The High Court also felt that while such matter were pending the Controller, Abbottabad Cantonment may not proceed with the eviction proceeding against the E.O.B.I.
6. ' It has been contended before us that the High Court has proceeded to pass a three dimensional order in circumstances where its Constitutional jurisdiction was not even invokable. It is elaborated that rejection order of the plaint was appealable whereas eviction proceedings could not continue to their logical conclusion. The order of the Commissioner, requiring the acquisition proceedings to be kept on hold, is also claimed to have been lawfully passed.
7. We recognize it as a rule, clearly enshrined in Article 199 of the Constitution that the High Court would not, in routine, interfere with orders passed by Courts subordinate to it including Courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction and would permit the disputes to be brought before itself in the ordinary course through the normal process of appeal, revision etc. However, such is not an inflexible rule and the High Court may side-step such normal remedies where pursuit of the same may, either result in abusing of process of the Court or retard the paramount interest of justice. It seems to us that the case covered by the present petition for leave to appeal is one such matter.
8. ' The petitioners were engineering a three pronged attack and recklessly advancing not only inconsistent but also mutually destructive pleas before the various fora. No doubt the E.O.B.I. Should have preferred an appeal against the rejection of the plaint but then in such an appeal the other two matters, with the institution was equally aggrieved, could not be taken care of. The choice remedy, therefore, in the circumstances, emerged to be a Constitutional Petition.
9. ' Plainly, the learned Civil Judge had rejected the plaint on totally irrelevant considerations and his order, in all probability, was void. Likewise, the Commissioner, merely on account of pendency of a civil suit, was not justified in ordering the stoppage of the acquisition proceedings. Much the same way, the matter of eviction, if the same had ended in throwing out of the E.O.B.I. From the premises, could only have been in the nature of a pre-emptive strike.
10. ' In the circumstances, dismissing his leave petition, we would maintain the High Court order. At the same time, however, we consider it necessary to condition that part of the High Court order, which pertains to the eviction matter. In that behalf, in our opinion, interest of justice would be met if the Controller is allowed to proceed with the eviction case but refrain for announcing his order till the outcome of the civil suit and the acquisition proceedings, abovementioned. Dismissed in terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.