Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 123 of 1966, decided on 27th May 1966.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 18th January 1966, in Civil Revision No. 24 of 1966).
Art. 58(3)‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑Ordinarily leave is not granted against interim orders passed in execution of discretionary powers such powers not being used arbitrarily or unreasonably‑[Interim injunction against construction of water‑channel granted by trial Court, set aside by District Judge‑Order setting aside injunction upheld by High Court‑Letters Patent appeal dismissed in limine‑Leave to appeal declined by Supreme Court].
Ordinarily the Supreme Court would not interfere in exercise of its special jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 58 of the Consti tution (1962) with orders of interim nature, which do not adjudicate finally upon the rights of the parties and are usually made in the exercise of discretion by the Courts below. A Court to which an appeal lies as of right would not lightly interfere with such orders unless it is shown that discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or in an unreasonable manner. To grant special leave to appeal a case of extraordinary nature should be made out, such as, involves abuse of powers by a Court or wanton exercise or discretion ‑resulting in miscarriage of justice.
In the instant case there was no ground to call in question the order of the District Judge setting aside the interim injunction issued by the trial Court which if allowed to remain in operation would have cut off the supply of water to the lands of the respondents without a corresponding loss to the petitioners in case of refusal. The balance of both convenience and inconvenience was thus in favour of refusing the grant of interim injunction.
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Nasim Hasan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, (Shaukat Ali Khawaja, Advocate, Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Khalilur Rahman Chaudhri, Attorney for Peti tioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 27th May 1966.
.‑By this petition leave is asked for to appeal from the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore dated the 18th January 1966. By that order an appeal preferred by the petitioner herein from the order of a learned Single Judge of that Court under the 10th Clause of Letters Patent was dismissed in limine and the order of the District Judge, Gujranwala, allowed to remain in field whereby he had set aside an interim injunction granted by the trial Court restraining the respondents herein from constructing and using an irrigational channel allegedly passing through the petitioners' land.
The District Judge found that the watercourse had already been constructed and passed through Government land and that the petitioners had failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of an interim injuction. The learned Judges of the High Court have found themselves in accord with this view and no material on the record has been brought to our notice to differ with them.
Ordinarily this Court would not interfere in exercise of its special jurisdiction under clause (3) of Article 58 of the Constitution with orders of interim nature which do not adjudicate finally upon the rights of the parties and are usually made in the exercise of discretion by the Courts below. It is for this reason that a Court to which an appeal lies as of right would not lightly interfere with such orders unless it is shown that discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or in an unreasonable manner. It is, therefore, obvious that to grant special leave to appeal a case of extraordinary nature should be made out, such as, involves abuse of powers by a Court or wanton exercise of discretion resulting in miscarriage of justice. In this view we find no ground to call in question the order of the District Judge setting aside the interim injunction issued by the trial Court which if allowed to: remain in operation would have cut off the supply of water to the lands of the respondents without a corresponding loss to the petitioners in case of refusal. The balance of both convenience and inconvenience was thus in favour of refusing the grant of interim injunction.
The petition for leave to appeal is for the foregoing reasons without merit and is hereby dismissed.
A. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer