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. 826 of 1980, decided on 20th September, 1980.
(On appeal from judgment dated 6-5-1980 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No. 364 of 1975).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
---S. 115--Revision-Jurisdiction 4 under S. 115--Primarily meant for correcting errors made by subordinate Courts in exercise of jurisdic tion and not those made in their discretion, unless discretion exercised fancifully or arbitrarily-Discretion exercised by first appellate Court neither fanciful nor arbitrary, writ petition, held, rightly dismissed by High Court.
Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahamood Khan P L D 1970 S C 139 ref.
Sh. Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 20th September, 1980.
-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 26-5-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a civil revision arising out of grant of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff, was dismissed.
According to the learned counsel, the petitioners purchased 46 kanals 14 marlas of land through a registered sale deed. The respondent filed a suit on 12-8-1974 challenging the transaction and sought temporary injunction with, respect. To his claim to dig the earth from the suit land. The learned trial Court granted the temporary injunction subject to the lump sum deposit by the respondent of Rs.9,516 plus monthly deposit of Rs.,800. The petitioners accepted the order of the learned trial Court and did not challenge it, while the respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned District Judge on 15-1-1975. The entire land measuring 46 kanals 11 marlas was brought under temporary injunction and the lump sum amount was increased from Rs.9,516 to Rs.1,000. The petitioners then challenged the said order through a revision in the High Court, which having been dismissed, they have filed this leave to appeal petition to challenge the grant of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we agree with the learned Single Judge in the High Court that the present case is covered by the law laid down in Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan (1)PD1970SC139), wherein it was held that the revision of jurisdiction under section 115, C. P. C. is meant primarily for correcting errors made by the Subordinate Courts in exercise of ' Jurisdiction and snot those which are made in their discretion unless the discretion is found to have been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily.
The discretion exercised by the first appellate Court in this case was neither fanciful nor arbitrary.
We, however, note that the learned Single Judge in the High Court did not notice that the suit was pending since 1974 and a temporary injunction having been issued since November 1974, there was a need for a direction for the speady disposal of the suit. The subject-matter of the suit was such that it should have been decided within a few months, or at least within a year. The learned trial Court would now do the needful for the disposal of the suit as soon as possible, preferably within a few months, failing which it would be desirable that the learned Court should submit a report with regard to the delay High Court.
With these observations this petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer