Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 163 of 1980, decided on 11th February, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑12‑1979 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 768 of 1979).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, r.1‑‑Order of temporary injunction‑‑Observations on rights of parties during pendency of writ petition challenged‑‑Observations not to amount to final determination of case which is to be decided after taking into consideration all relevant facts‑‑Petition being premature, leave to appeal refused.

Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th February, 1981.

‑‑ This petition is directed against the interim order, dated 20‑12‑1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court during the pendency of Writ Petition No.768‑8 of 1979.

Since the writ petition is still pending we would not like to say anything which might prejudice the determination of the same. Suffice it to say that the Provincial Government through the Secretary Forestry and Wild Life Department had filed a writ petition challenging the order of allotment passed in favour of the petitioner in respect of certain lands which the Forest Department claim was not in the compensation pool and of which it was the rightful owner. A stay order was also issued in favour of the Forest Department. The petitioner herein, who was the respondent before the High Court, filed an application for vacation of the said stay order and some proceedings took place in that connection, the records were summoned and the parties heard. Where after, the impugned order dated 20‑12‑1979 was passed wherein the following observations occour‑

"After going through the record produced by the Forest Department, I am fully convinced that the respondent had no right whatsoever to assert any claim over the land involved in this petition of which the Forest Department is the full owner. The stay granted in their favour is hereby confirmed and the application of the respondent for vacation of stay is dismissed."

The learned counsel submitted that after the observations to the effect "that the respondent had no right whatsoever to assert any claim over the land involved in this petition of which the Forest Department is the full owner" the writ petition stands practically accepted and further proceedings therein would a formality. Hence in these circumstances he can challenge the validity of the interim order by the present petition.

We do not agree with this approach. The writ petition is still pending and the observations made are not a final determination of the case but are of a tentative nature, though the language used is undoubtedly rather strong. In these circumstances, the High Court has still to finally decide the matter which we are sure will be decided after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and law. The present petition before us is, therefore, premature.

This petition is dismissed with the above observations.

M.I. 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.