Mst. ROSHAN BIBI vs MACHAL DIN and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court, whereby respondents were held entitled to receive their share in crops through the office of the Assistant Commissioner pending final adjudication of the dispute. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting interim relief relating to crop shares during the pendency of an appeal arising from a declaratory suit challenging a sale-deed and power of attorney. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court committed no illegality or legal infirmity in passing the interim measure to safeguard the interests of the parties while the appeal remained pending before the First Appellate Court. The key principle laid down is that superior courts may uphold interim measures designed to protect parties' interests during ongoing appellate proceedings where no jurisdictional defect is shown.
- Whether an interim order granting crop shares during the pendency of an appeal warrants interference by the Supreme Court when no legal infirmity is shown?
- Can a High Court pass an interim measure to safeguard the interest of parties during pending appellate proceedings?
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against an interim order, dated 24-2-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, as an interim measure held that the respondents/appellants are entitled to receive their share in the crops from Rabi, 2000 onwards through the office of Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Cantt.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the respondents filed a declaratory suit on 6-6-1992 taking exception to the General Power of Attorney as well as the sale- deed accomplished on the basis of the same as having been secured through fraudulent means.
3. The learned Civil Judge rejected the plaint through order dated 6-10-1992. The learned First Appellate Court after accepting the appeal remanded the case for its decision on merits.
4. Subsequent to the remand, the learned trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment dated 11- 7-1995. The petitioner filed an appeal against the above judgment, which was accepted on 11-2- 1996 and the case was again remanded to the trial Court. Thereafter the trial Court proceeded in the matter in accordance with the direction of the learned Fist Appellate Court and decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 29-4-1999.
5. ' The petitioner filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge through his order, dated 12-10-1999 ordered the maintenance of status quo. This order was assailed by the respondents before the Lahore High Court through F.A.O. No, 297 of 1999. A miscellaneous application was also filed seeking direction for the payment of Hissa Batai. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the impugned order, dated 24-2-2000 held the respondents entitled to the share in the crops from Rabi, 2000 onwards. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
6. ' We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition. We have noticed that the declaratory suit was decreed in favor of the respondents on 20-4-1999. Appeal against the same is still pending before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court after affording ample opportunity to the petitioner passed the impugned order as an interim measure so as to safeguard the interest of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
7. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and .