Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1324 of 1982, decided on 18th March, 1984.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22-11-1983, passed in Civil Revision No. 340/83).

---Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, rr.l & 2--Interim injunction--Leave to appeal--Petition relating to interlocutory matter--Three Courts had successively considered and dismissed applica tion for interim injunction--Petitioner had not been able to raise any important question of law requiring decision by Supreme Court nor had he been able to show any defect of law in impugned order--Petition dismissed.

Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Irshad Hassan Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with Qamaruddin Meo, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 18th March, 1984.

Haji Aziz Muhammad petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 22-11-1983 dismissing his civil revision against the order of the District Judge, Rajanpur, in an interlocutory matter relating to interim injunction. The facts briefly are that Haji Aziz Ahmad (petitioner) filed a suit against his brother Haji Jan Muhammad for a declaration to the effect that he was owner-in-occupation of the suit land and that the order of his ejectment passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Rajanpur was illegal. Along with the suit he also moved an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction. This application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 18-7-1983. He then filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the District Judge, Rajanpur. Feeling aggrieved he filed a civil revision before the High Court. After fully considering the matter the High Court also dismissed the revision.

Still not satisfied he has come up to this Court through the present petition.

2. As already observed the petition relates to an interlocutory matter. Three Courts have successively considered and dismissed the application for interim injunction. The petitioner's counsel has not been able to raise any important question of law requiring decision by this Court nor has he been able to show any defect of law in the impugned order.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any merit

M . Z . M Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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