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 No. 444 of 1985, decided on 23rd June, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 9‑4‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Civil Revision No. 238 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 1‑ Tempocary injunction‑‑Grant of‑‑Arbitration award pending in Civil Court‑‑Respondents instituting suit before Revenue Court for recovery of rent and ejectment of petitioners‑‑Petitioners' application for grant of temporary injunction there against rejected by Civil Court‑‑Order upheld in appeal and revision inter alia on ground that competently instituted proceedings before Revenue Court could not be frustrated by issuance of restraining order‑‑Supreme Court while maintaining impugned order, held, injunction could not be granted by a Court to stay proceedings another Court which is not subordinate to Court from which injunction is sought‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Ch. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ch. Noor Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1985.
The petitioners had moved the Civil Court for making an award given by an Arbitrator where under they were held entitled to the suit land subject to payment of Rs.2,50,000 as a rule of the Court. The respondents who claim to be purchasers of the suit land had raised objections to the said award and the matter is pending in a Civil Court. Meanwhile, the respondents instituted a suit against the petitioners in the Revenue Court for the recovery of rent and for their ejectment. The petitioners submitted an application before the Civil Court seized with the matter of the award for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in any manner with their possession over the disputed land. This prayer was refused and the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, who also dismissed the same vide order, dated 18‑2‑1982. The petitioners then preferred a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. A learned Judge of the said Court in a well‑considered order rejected the revision petition holding, inter alia, that competently instituted proceedings before the revenue Court cannot be frustrated by the issuance of restraining order. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The orders of the Courts below do not require any interference not only for the reasons set out by them in their orders but also for the additional reason that an injunction cannot be granted by a Court to stay proceedings of another Court which is not subordinate to the Court from which injunction is sought. As the revenue Court is not subordinate to the Civil Court in the relevant regard, hence no injunction can be granted to stay its proceedings.
4. This petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
M . I . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer