ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

H.C.A. No.22 of 2022

___________________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________________

FRESH CASE:

1. For order on CMA No.110/2022 (Urgent).

2. For order on office objection a/w reply as at ‘A’.

3. For order on CMA No.111/2022 (Exemption).

4. For hearing of main case.

5. For order on CMA No.112/2022 (Stay).

-----------

19^th January 2022

Mr. Abdul Qayyum Abbasi, Advocate for Appellant.

-*-*-*-*-*-

1. Urgency granted.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to comply with office objection before next date of hearing.

3. Exemption granted, but subject to all just exceptions.

4&5. Through instant High Court Appeal, the appellant has impugned order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.2895 of 2021, whereby, according to learned counsel for appellant, on the first date of hearing without hearing the appellant or issuing notice to him, directions have been issued to the defendant/respondent No.4 i.e. National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) to block the CNIC of the appellant, whereas, directions have also been issued to the defendants/respondents No.2&3 i.e. Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Director General, Federal Investigation Agency, to put the name of the appellant in “PNIL”. It has been contended by the learned counsel for appellant that pursuant to a judgment passed by Dubai Courts where execution is also pending, respondent No.1 filed a Suit No.2895/2021, seeking direction, enforcement/execution of foreign judgment and permanent injunction, however, without obtaining certificate from the Court of First Instance at Dubai to the effect, as to whether the execution has been satisfied or not, whereas, despite of availability of the local address of the appellant no notice was served upon him and the service has been affected through publication. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that without prejudice to the merits of the case and the defence, as may be taken in the aforesaid suit by the appellant, the learned Single Judge could not have passed an order directing for blockage of CNIC of the appellant while sitting on the original side, whereas, according to the learned counsel, in case of a private dispute between the parties CNIC cannot be blocked in terms of Section 18 of the National Database and Registration Authority, Ordinance, 2000. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for appellant that through impugned order, directions have also been issued to the defendants/respondents No.2&3 to put the name of the appellant in “PNIL” which is in violation of the provisions of Rule 2(a) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010, which provides that persons involved in private disputes where government interest is not at stake, except cases of fraud against foreign banks and reputable companies with significant foreign investments, however, the name of the appellant cannot be placed in PNIL. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that through impugned order, infact the injunction application bearing CMA No.21537/2021 in the aforesaid suit has been finally decided and there is nothing left for the appellant to agitate the same before learned Single Judge, which has finally decided its fate.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record as well as impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as referred to hereinabove.

Though we are of the tentative view that unless a final order is passed by the learned Single Judge in a suit or on an application, same cannot be assailed by filing an appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Act (VIII of 1972) read with Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it amounts to pre-empting the final decision by the learned Single Judge on such application after hearing the parties in accordance with law. However, on perusal of impugned order, it appears that on the first date of hearing an exparte ad-interim order has been passed, whereby, the relief claimed by the respondent No.1 on the injunction application appears to have been granted without hearing the concerned parties, therefore, we would issue pre-admission notice to the respondents as well as D.A.G, to be served through first three modes, for 28.01.2022, when objection/reply, if any, shall be filed with advance copy to the learned counsel for appellant. In the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order shall remain suspended till next date of hearing, however, subject to appellant’s furnishing original passport before the Nazir of this Court within two days hereof.

J U D G E