ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

H.C.A. No.158 of 2022

Date	Order with signature of Judge

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Disposed of Case

1. For orders on CMA No.857/2026

2. For orders on CMA No.858/2026

22-09-2026

Mr. Ovais Ali Shah, Advocate for respondent / applicant.

---------

1. Urgency disposed of.

2. By means of the listed application (CMA No.858 of 2026), filed under Section 151 CPC, the Respondent, Pakistan Industries (Pvt.) Limited (“Applicant”), seeks suspension of the operation of the judgment dated 10.09.2026 for a period of sixty (60) days to enable it to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 185(2) of the Constitution.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that unless the judgment is temporarily suspended, KPT may initiate a competitive bidding/tender process or seek vacation of the subject premises, thereby prejudicing the Applicant's proposed appeal. It is further contended that the decree pursuant to the judgment dated 10.09.2026 has not yet been drawn up and, in the absence of its certified copy, the Applicant is presently unable to institute a complete appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms of Order XII Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

Section 151 CPC merely preserves the inherent powers of the Court and cannot be invoked to confer substantive jurisdiction or circumvent an express remedy provided by law. Once the appeals have been finally disposed of, this Court becomes functus officio, except to the extent specifically permitted by law. As held in Karamatullah Khan v. Government of West Pakistan [PLD 1967 Lahore 171], Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked after final disposal merely to suspend a judgment to enable an aggrieved party to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Applicant's intended appeal, therefore, does not by itself justify suspension of the final judgment.

The non-preparation of the decree-sheet does not alter this position. In Capital Development Authority and another v. Hashwani Hotels Ltd. [2018 SCMR 401], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering Order XII Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, recognized that a decree may be prepared subsequent to pronouncement of the judgment and that its actual preparation is relevant for purposes of limitation. Thus, administrative time consumed in preparation of the decree does not, by itself, deprive an aggrieved party of its appellate remedy. The appropriate course is to ensure expeditious preparation of the decree rather than to suspend the final judgment of this Court.

Even otherwise, the apprehension expressed by the Applicant does not presently warrant suspension. The judgment dated 10.09.2026 neither directs immediate dispossession of the Applicant nor requires KPT to forthwith initiate a competitive auction/tender process. It only provides that any future leasehold arrangement shall be dealt with by KPT in accordance with law and its applicable rules and regulations and, where a competitive process is undertaken, subject to the Applicant's first right of refusal in the manner specified in the judgment. The apprehended prejudice is, therefore, contingent upon future action and does not presently disclose any immediate or irreversible consequence.

Moreover, the mere intention to prefer an appeal does not operate as a stay of the judgment sought to be challenged. The Applicant remains at liberty to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court and seek such interim protection as may be available to it in accordance with law. Suspension of the judgment by this Court would, in effect, keep in abeyance the consequences of its final determination that the renewed lease terms have already expired and may indirectly revive an interim arrangement which stood concluded with the final judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC. CMA No.858 of 2026 is accordingly dismissed. The office is, however, directed to prepare and draw up the decree pursuant to the judgment dated 10.09.2026 expeditiously, preferably within seven (07) days, so that no avoidable administrative delay occurs in the Applicant availing such remedy as may be available to it in accordance with law.

JUDGE

Naveed PA.