Mr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

H.C.A. No.502 OF 2024

[ Pilibhit Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., v. Federation of Pakistan & others ]

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

***********

Appellant : Through Mr. Nadir Khan Burdi,Advocate

Date of hearing & order : 29.04.2026

O R D E R

ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN J; This High Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 01.11.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.1708 of 2023 whereby dismissed the Appellant’s application for interim injunction (CMA No.16292/2023) and further learned counsel for the plaintiff was put on notice to satisfy this Court as to how in exercise of powers per Section 9 of the CPC, read with enabling provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, orders can be rendered to strike down another statute / provision thereof.

2. Briefly stated that the Appellant filed Suit No.1708 of 2023 challenging the vires of various provisions of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 2020 and the Sindh Cooperative Societies Rules, 2020. It is the case of the Appellant that this suit is one among several filed by various housing societies involving common questions of law. On 14.09.2020 the intervenors filed CMA No.13141/2024 under Section 151 CPC to tag the present suit with 12 other matters and vide order dated 29.09.2024 the Court ordered notice on the same for 01.11.2024. However, the intervenors failed to supply copies for issuance of notice, leading the office to fix the matter on 01.11.2024 specifically for "non-prosecution" of the intervenors’ application however, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Appellant’s application for interim injunction (CMA No. 16292/2023) and put the Appellant on notice to satisfy the Court with regard to the maintainability of the suit.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant argues that the impugned order was passed in a vacuum of procedural fairness. It is contended that on 01.11.2024, the matter was fixed solely for the non-prosecution of the intervenor’s CMA No.13141/2024. Despite this, the learned Single Judge took up and dismissed the Plaintiff’s stay application (CMA No.16292/2023), which was not even fixed for hearing on that day. Counsel further argues that the Appellant was condemned unheard, violating Article 10-A of the Constitution. Counsel further argues that the interim relief sought was merely to restrain coercive action and did not amount to "suspending the law" as interpreted by the learned Single Judge.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully examined the record and noted that despite due service of notice in this appeal, the Respondents have neither appeared nor filed any reply/objections. Perusal of the order dated 20.09.2024 confirms that the matter was indeed fixed for 01.11.2024 for "non-prosecution" due to the intervenors’ failure to supply copies of his application for issuance of notice. It is a settled principle of law that a party cannot be blindsided by a final adjudication on a substantive application when there is only a procedural default of another party. By dismissing the stay application without it being listed for hearing, the learned Single Judge deprived the Appellant of their right to a fair hearing. Furthermore, while the learned Single Judge expressed concerns regarding the suspension of statutes at the interim stage, the Appellant’s challenge to the vires of the Act under Section 9 CPC requires a full hearing, particularly since ad-interim protection had been in the field since 20.10.2023.

5. It is settled principle of law that interim applications must be decided only when properly fixed for hearing and after affording parties an opportunity to address the Court. The dismissal of CMA No.16292/2023, when the matter was listed solely for non‑prosecution of another party’s application, offends the principle of natural justice and undermines consistency in judicial process. The intervenors’ default could not justify depriving the Appellant of subsisting ad‑interim protection.

6. For the reasons as discussed above, this High Court Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.11.2024 is hereby set aside. The Appellant’s application for interim injunction, CMA No.16292/2023, is restored to its original position. The ad-interim protection granted to the Appellant on 20.10.2023 is also restored. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to decide the stay application and the question of maintainability afresh after providing the parties a fair and meaningful opportunity of being heard.

JUDGE

Naveed PA