Find a Lawyer

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑High Court leaving order of District Judge and dismissing petitioner's application for temporary injunction‑‑No interference with order of High Court found to be called for‑‑Leave to appeal refused‑‑Trial Court, however, decided to dispose of petitioner's suit within three months.

Mirza Hafeez ur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th February, 1984.

J.‑‑ The petitioner, Muhammad Siddique, whose house adjoins the house of Mistri Abdul Aziz (respondent herein) who is running a flour machine and a Painja in his house felt disturbed by the operation of the said machine and Painja by the respondent as it produced vibrations and was allegedly damaging his property. He, therefore, filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from operating the said flour machine and Painja and also moved an application for a temporary injunction. as a measure of interim relief.

The learned trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction but, on appeal, the learned District Judge set aside his order and granted the temporary injunction in his favour. However, on revision, the High Court, after perusing the report of a Local Commis sioner (Dr. A. Basit, Advocate who was appointed by it, with the consent of both the parties) reversed the order of the District Judge and dismissed the application for temporary injunction by his order, dated 9‑5‑1983. He, however, directed that the respondent shall not operate the flour machine and the Painja after sunset. He further directed that the suit shall be disposed of expeditiously preferably within three months.

The petitioner has now moved this Court seeking leave to appeal against the above order.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we do not consider that any interference with the order of the High Court is called for, but strongly feel that the suit itself should have been decided expeditiously.

In this connection, we note that the learned Judge in the High Court had directed the learned trial Court to decide the suit expedi tiously, preferably within three months vide its order, dated 9‑5‑1983. It is a matter of regret that even though over nine months have elapsed since the said order was passed but the suit is still pending.

We direct the learned trial Court to give priority to this suit and to dispose it of within three months from today. In case he is not able to do so he shall submit a report to the Registrar, Lahore High Court giving reasons for his failure to decide the suit within the aforesaid period, with a copy to the Assistant Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court of Pakistan, Branch Registry at Lahore.

This petition, with these directions, stands disposed of.

S.Q. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.