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. 133 of 1981, heard on 22nd April, 1981.
(On petition against the judgment and order, dated 10‑11‑1980 passed by the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 299 of 1978).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, 2‑‑Grant of temporary injunction impugned‑‑Order upheld in appeal and revision‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere in discretionary jurisdiction rightly exercised by trial Court‑‑Leave to appear refused.
Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1981.
‑‑ This petition is directed against the order of the High Court, dated 10th of November, 1980 whereby the petition against the interlocutory order was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the present petition briefly are that the respondents' land in two villages in Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujrat is sought to be acquired by the Government for a Housing Scheme. The owners/ respondents of the land filed a joint suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge for a declaration that their land had not been acquired for a public purpose and for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from acquiring the same. They also filed an application for interim stay under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. The trial Court, granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs on 18‑5‑1977. The defendants (the present petitioners) filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on 15‑11‑1977. Aggrieved by this the petitioners filed a civil revision in the High Court but that also met the same fate. Hence this civil petition for special leaves to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the relevant orders. We do not consider it a fit case for interference in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction by the learned trial Court, which we feel has been rightly exercised. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.
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