Sitting Panel: Ajmal Mian, C.J., Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ

Summary: This consolidated set of 8 appeals and 106 petitions for leave to appeal primarily challenged the Lahore and Sindh High Courts’ decisions that interim prohibitory orders (especially concerning assessment and collection of public revenues) had expired and ceased to have legal effect after six months, as mandated by Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan. Petitioners (various textile mills, power companies, etc.) argued that the inability of High Courts to dispose of their cases within the stipulated six months due to heavy pendency and shortage of judges should not prejudice them, invoking principles like “actus curiae neminem gravabit” (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man) and requesting judicial interpretation to extend the interim orders.

The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals and petitions, affirming that interim orders covered by Article 199(4-A) automatically expire after six months by operation of the constitutional provision, regardless of whether the High Court managed to dispose of the main case within that period. The Court clarified that there is no conflict between clauses (4-A) and (4-B) of Article 199, and the latter (requiring disposal within six months) is directory, not mandatory, due to Article 254. While acknowledging the difficulties faced by High Courts, the Supreme Court strongly urged them to make “sincere efforts” to dispose of such cases within the six-month period, suggesting the constitution of Special Benches to achieve this constitutional mandate, which would benefit both litigants and the Federation.