RIAZ KAYANI, Ahmad Taufeeq son of Mian Muhammad Taufeeq has filed the instant Intra Court Appeal being aggrieved with the order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby the appellant/petitioner was directed to pay to Shoaib Ahmad respondent No. 3 a sum of Rs.4,03,160/- within a fortnight and if so advised the petitioner may move the Station House Officer for registration of the case against Shoaib Arshad.
2. Ahmad Taufeeq author of Writ Petition No. 10317/2000 contended that on 10.3.2000 at 3.00 p.m. Muhammad Shoaib son of M. Arshad while armed with deadly weapons alongwith his companions trespassed into godown of petitioner and loaded 150 tons of Iron Bars on tractor-trolley with the help of 40/50 Coolies and whisked away. The occurrence was reported to Station House Officer, Police Station Lorri Adda, Lahore who refused to move the machinery of law. Re ultantly Writ Petition No. 5865/2000 was moved which came before the learned Single Judge of this Court wherein S.P. (City) was directed to inquire into the matter and if cognizable offence is made out he should proceed in accordance with law. It is averred that respondent No. 2 was influenced by the weight of Pakistan Steel Traders Association and persuaded petitioner to compromise his dispute with the association, however, the petitioner declined to accede to his request and stated that the offer of the President of Pakistan Steel Traders Association that property would be returned to him in case he restrains himself from pursuing his remedy manifested his supplication that Muhammad Shoaib was responsible for the theft and it was prayed that once again respondent No. 1 i.e. SHO concerned be directed to register a case.
3. Muhammad Shoaib by moving the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC became a party to the writ petition and on 11.9.2000 learned Single Judge in Chamber after hearing both the parties concluded that the matter was of rendition of accounts and it should be got decided by Traders Association whose names were suggested to the petitioner but he did not agree, as such the matter was referred to President Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Vice-President Sheikh Muhammad Asif who were directed to give patient hearing to the parties and reach a conclusion whereafter report be submitted. Vide order impugned dated 17.10.2000 learned Single Judge in Chamber held that Ahmad Taufeeq petitioner purchased angle iron from Muhammad Shoaib Arshad in October/November, 1999 for a sum of Rs.17,11,485/- but payment to the extent of Rs.3,11,485/- was made and a balance of Rs.14,00,000/- remained which the petitioner was bound to pay under the law to Muhammad Shoaib Arshad. Of City Steel Industry. Since the petitioner was not paying the money hence Shoaib Arshad came to his godown and took away 55,385 KG iron bar valuing Rs.9,96,840/-. Report of President of Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry concluded that the petitioner had to pay Rs.4,03,160/- to Muhammad Shoaib Arshad respondent No. 3 and it also came to light that respondent No. 3 forcibly took away goods from the godown of the petitioner which was against business ethics as the matter related to settlement of accounts between two parties. It was in this context that learned Judge in Chamber directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,03,160/- to Muhammad Shoaib Arshad within a fortnight
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that President Lahore Chamber of Commerce, appointed as arbitrator without the wishes of the appellant, on the directions of learned Single Judge, concluded that the matter between the appellant and respondent No. 3 being that of rendition of accounts, the proper course was to file a civil suit and that without framing of issues and determination of the liability through adducement of evidence the order passed by the learned Judge directing the appellant/petitioner to pay the amount to respondent No. 3 was wholly un-countenanced in the eyes of law and cannot be supported by moral or legal standards.
5. Point made out by the learned counsel for the appellant has considerable force.
Appellant/petitioner and respondent No. 3 were doing business, respondent No. 3 supplied Iron Bars to the appellant for which the appellant had to make payment, in case of default of part payment, it was a matter which had to be decided by the Civil Court through a civil suit after framing of issues and leading of evidence by both the parties. Respondent No. 3 had absolutely no right to take his tractor-trolley to the premises of the appellant and in surreptitious manner remove the Iron Bars with his cronies. The act amounts to a prima facie offence. Subsequent filing of writ petition by the appellant for registration of the case was one matter, however, the learned' Judge drifted to another matter which was totally alien to the subject-matter of .Dispute, elicited from the averments made in the writ petition. Undoubtedly Constitutional jurisdiction is based upon equity however where a disputed question of facts come into existence one should always refrain from exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The proper course would have been to ask the parties to get the matter settled by a Civil Court and resolution of the dispute through .An arbitrator to which the 'petitioner/appellant was not a party is again something which is not within the domain of this Court. Jurisdiction under Art 199 is circumspect by limitations contained therein. The Presedent Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry's effort to reach a just and final conclusion is indeed commendable but it can never take the form of a regular inquiry required to be undertaken by a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. If we encourage the settlement of money disputes by this Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction it would not only open a pindora box for uncalled for litigation but we would be trammelling upon the jurisdiction vested in Civil Courts. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has nothing to controvert the assertions of counsel for the appellant.
Resultantly, Intra Court Appeal is accepted the order of the learned Single Judge in Chamber dated 17.10.2000 directing appellant to pay Rs.4,03,160/- to respondent No. 3 is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Respondent No. 1 S.H.O. Of Police Station Lorri Adda is directed to record the statement of the appellant/petitioner and if a cognizable offence is made out he shall proceed in accordance with law.