IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi

   Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain

High Court Appeal No.181 of 2021

M/s. Zahir Khan & Brothers (ZKB) ………………………………….Appellant

Versus

Province of Sindh & 3 others………………………………..…..Respondents

Appellant                               :           Through Mr. Asim Iqbal, Advocate

Date of Hearing                    :           08.10.2021

Date of Short Order             :           08.10.2021

-*-*-*-*-*-

O R D E R  

Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J : -- Instant High Court Appeal has been filed against an order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, on the original side, of this Court in Suit No.1792 of 2021, which reads as follows: -

            “Learned counsel for the plaintiff files a statement alongwith letter of the defendant No.2 dated 28.09.2021 for submission of financial bids under Rule 83(I) – Dhabeji Industrial Zone Project. Date of ‘bid submission’ is mentioned as 12.10.2021 in that letter and ‘bid opening’ date is also same. Learned counsel for the plaintiff should participate in the auction proceedings on the relevant date as stated above and if plaintiff will have any grievance in respect of the auction, same may be agitated on the next date of hearing i.e. 19.10.2021 when this case is already fixed before this Court.”

2.         Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that through impugned order learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to participate in the auction proceedings scheduled to be held on 12.10.2021, inspite of the fact that bidding process is patently illegal, whereas, grievance of appellant has not been redressed. According to learned counsel, in the earlier round of bidding process, appellant was technically qualified and had submitted highest bid price, however, was not declared as successful bidder by the respondents on extraneous considerations, whereas, a complaint was also filed by the appellant before the CRC, however, the grievance of appellant was not redressed and the appellant was constrained to file a suit alongwith injunction application, however, no restraining order has been passed. It has been prayed that impugned order may be set aside.

3.         We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order, as referred to hereinabove, which shows that through impugned order, neither any application seeking injunction or otherwise has been disposed of, nor any final adverse order appears to have been passed, which may otherwise affect the claim of the appellant, which is yet to be determined and decided by the learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is neither final, nor rights of the parties have been finally determined, as the injunction application filed by the appellant is still pending for final disposal. It further transpires that while allowing the appellant to participate in the auction proceedings on the scheduled date, it has been further observed by the learned Single Judge that if, the appellant will have any grievance in respect of such auction, appellant may agitate the same on the next date i.e. on 19.10.2021, when the suit is already fixed before the Court.

4.         In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of instant case, we are of the opinion that impugned order is not an appealable order, as it only contains certain directions issued by the learned Single Judge during pendency of the suit, to regulate the process, without finally deciding the fate of any pending application, or the relief being sought in the suit. It has been observed that tendency to challenge every order or directions of interim in nature has increased which not only multiplies the litigation, but also causes delay in disposal of cases on merits. Since the order impugned is neither final nor any pending application has been decided, which could give rise to a grievance to the appellant or would have adversely affected the case of appellant on merits before the learned Single Judge, therefore, is not assailable in appeal. Moreover, the appellant is allowed to raise any objection on the process of auction before the learned Single Judge, therefore, instant High Court Appeal is misconceived and not maintainable, which was dismissed vide our short order dated 08.10.2021 in the following terms: -

“4&5.   For reasons to be recorded later on, instant High Court Appeal is dismissed in limine alongwith listed application, however, appellant is at liberty to obtain any restraining order on the injunction application pending before the learned Single Judge in accordance with law, whereas, dismissal of instant appeal will not affect the merits of such application, which shall be decided in accordance with law.”

5.         Above are the reasons of the said short order.

           J U D G E

                   J U D G E

Farhan-PS/Nadeem