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. 608 of 1980, decided on 16th November, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 24-4-1980, in C. R. No. 504-DJ79).
---- O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Temporary injunction-Issuance of temporary injunction Discretionary with Court--High Court not considering fit to exercise, such discretion in circumstances of case-Mere non-issuance of tem porary injunction by High Court-Cannot be made a ground for appeal before Supreme Court.-[Injunction-Appeal (civil)].
Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Kh. Muhammad Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 16th November, 1980.
-This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order dated 2-4-1980, whereby the High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2058/C/80, in a Civil Revision No. 504/13/79 which is still pending in that Court, By dismissing the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application, the High Court refused to issue any ad interim injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating the land in dispute till the decision of the revision petition, Even earlier thereto the High Court had refused the aforesaid prayers on 19-1-1980 and 10-7-1979.
2. The reason given by the High Court in its impugned order dated 2-4-1980 was that the petitioner had not come to the High Court with clean bands inasmuch as he all along gave the impression that he was in physical possession of the property in dispute, though it had later on transpired that this was not so and that he was only in symbolic possession. In its earlier order dated 10-7-1979, the High Court had observed that there was no necessity to issue any temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating the suit property inasmuch as if any sale was to be made that obviously would remain subject to the result of the litigation which was pending between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error of facts or of law in the impugned order of the High Court. Issuance of a temporary injunction was in the discretion of the High Court and if in the circumstances above explained it did not consider fit to exercise that discretion in favour of the petitioner, that is no ground by itself to grant special leave to appeal.
4. 'The result is that this petition has no merit and 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