IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

H.C.A. No.155 OF 2022

[Mohammad Ayaz Khan v. Feroz 1888 Mills Limited]

PRESENT:

            Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan

                                      Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito       

Disposed of Case

For hearing of CMA No.1546/2025

Appellant                               :           Muhammad Ayaz Khan in person.

Respondent                           :           Through Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani,

advocate.

Date of hearing                     :           10.08.2026

Date of order                         :           10.08.2026

O R D E R

ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN J; By means of the instant application [CMA No.1546/2025], filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), the Appellant seeks a direction to the Respondent-Company to pay additional compensation.

2.         The record reflects that the captioned High Court Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.03.2022 and decree dated 26.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No.1701 of 2015, instituted by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant, seeking compensation and damages arising out of his termination from service as an Electrician in the respondent organization under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, whereby the suit was dismissed.

The record further reflects that the present High Court Appeal was finally disposed of vide judgment dated 18.04.2025. While declining the other reliefs sought by the appellant, this Court granted only profit on the amount of compensation. The principal amount of compensation had already been received by the appellant pursuant to the order of the competent authority as far back as in the year 2015. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment dated 18.04.2025 is reproduced hereunder :-

“12.     We, therefore, in the light of evidence of the parties  and willingness of the respondent company, grant him profit as calculated by the Nazir. We set aside the Impugned Judgment and Decree and allow this appeal by holding that appellant is entitled to profits on the amount of compensation (Rs.888,134/-) granted by the Authority amounting to Rs.774925.66. This amount shall be deposited by the respondent company with Nazir of this court within a period of 15 days and Nazir is directed to disburse the amount immediately thereafter to the appellant on his due verification and identification as per law.

The appeal stands disposed of alongwith pending applications.

After disposal of the instant High Court Appeal, the listed application [CMA No.1546 of 2025] was filed.

3. The Appellant, appearing in person, contended that while disposing of the instant High Court Appeal vide judgment dated 18.04.2025, this Court awarded profit on the principal compensation amount of Rs.888,134/- for the period from 29.09.2009 to 12.01.2015; however, according to him, the said amount does not adequately compensate him for the loss allegedly suffered on account of substantial devaluation of the Pakistani currency during the relevant period and other damages originally claimed in Suit No.1701 of 2015. He submits that the profit awarded by this Court, amounting to Rs.774,925.66, falls short of the actual loss sustained by him. The Appellant further submits that he is a 77-year-old senior citizen with frail health and has remained embroiled in protracted litigation for more than a decade. He, therefore, maintained that, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, this Court may award him additional compensation under the remaining heads of his original claim, including multi-fold compensation, delay charges at the rate of 18%, loss occasioned by currency devaluation, and damages for mental agony.

4.         Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent strongly opposed the maintainability of the instant application. He submitted that the instant High Court Appeal was finally heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.04.2025. Pursuant thereto, the amount of profit on the compensation, quantified at Rs.774,926/-, was duly deposited by the Respondent with the Nazir of this Court and was subsequently disbursed to and received by the Appellant through Cheque No.04504167 dated 07.05.2025. Learned counsel contended that, upon final disposal of the appeal and satisfaction of the judgment, this Court became functus officio and, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to entertain a post-disposal application seeking additional monetary relief beyond what was granted in the final judgment. He further submitted that the remaining monetary claims now sought to be revived by the Appellant had already been considered and declined in the judgment dated 18.04.2025 for want of supporting evidence. According to him, the Appellant cannot, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC, reopen matters that have attained finality or seek relief which was not granted in the judgment. He, therefore, maintained that the instant application is barred by the principle of res judicata and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.

5.         We have heard the Appellant as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent and carefully perused the material available on record.

6.         The principal question requiring determination is whether, after final disposal of the appeal on merits and satisfaction of the monetary relief granted therein, an application under Section 151 CPC can be maintained for grant of additional monetary relief which was not allowed in the final judgment.

7.         It is well settled that Section 151 CPC merely preserves the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Such inherent jurisdiction, however, cannot be exercised in a manner which overrides the express provisions of law, nor can it be invoked as a substitute for the remedies of appeal, review or any other remedy provided by law. More importantly, Section 151 CPC cannot be employed to reopen, modify, enlarge or supplement a final judgment or decree by granting substantive relief which was either declined or not found proved at the time of final adjudication.

8.         In the present case, the appeal was finally decided on merits vide judgment dated 18.04.2025. While granting the Appellant the amount of profit found to be established on the record, this Court also considered his remaining monetary claims and declined to grant the same for want of supporting evidence. The amount awarded under the said judgment was thereafter deposited by the Respondent and ultimately disbursed to and received by the Appellant on 07.05.2025. Thus, the judgment stood satisfied and the proceedings attained finality.

9.         Once the appeal had been finally adjudicated and the relief granted thereunder had been satisfied, this Court became functus officio insofar as the merits of the controversy and the quantum of monetary relief were concerned. The inherent jurisdiction preserved by Section 151 CPC cannot, therefore, be invoked to revisit the merits of the concluded proceedings or to award additional amounts under the heads of currency devaluation, delay charges, multi-fold compensation or damages for mental agony, as doing so would, in substance, amount to modification and enlargement of the final judgment dated 18.04.2025. If the Appellant was aggrieved by the non-grant of any part of his claim, including compensation on account of currency devaluation or other damages, the appropriate course available to him was to assail the judgment dated 18.04.2025 before the competent higher forum, in accordance with law and within the prescribed period of limitation. He cannot be permitted to circumvent such remedy by re-agitating the same claims before this Court through a post-disposal miscellaneous application under Section 151 CPC.

10.       There is yet another aspect of the matter which cannot be overlooked. The final judgment disposing of the instant High Court Appeal was pronounced on 18.04.2025, whereafter the Respondent, in compliance with the said judgment, deposited the amount awarded by this Court, which was subsequently received by the Appellant on 07.05.2025 without raising any objection or reservation. The present application under Section 151 CPC, however, came to be filed on 01.12.2025, i.e., after a lapse of more than seven months from the date of the judgment, without offering any plausible explanation for such delay. It is a settled principle of law that equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC, being discretionary in nature, cannot be invoked to reopen proceedings that have already attained finality, particularly after an unexplained lapse of time and where the judgment has been acted upon and the amount of profit on the compensation received without reservation. In the present case, having accepted the amount awarded under the final judgment, the Appellant cannot subsequently resort to Section 151 CPC to reopen the concluded controversy or seek additional substantive monetary relief beyond that granted by this Court. The unexplained delay and laches in filing the instant application, when considered together with the satisfaction of the judgment and acceptance of the decretal amount, therefore, constitute an additional ground for declining the relief sought by the Appellant.

11.       In view of the foregoing discussion, legal position and observations, the instant application [CMA No.1546/2025], filed by the Appellant under Section 151 CPC, is found to be incompetent and not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Naveed PA