Pakistan Case Law
1981 SC M R837

Ch. MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL. COMMITTEE, JALALPUR

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1981 SC M R837
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 65 of 1981
Date1981-01-16
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafi-ur-Rehman
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arises from an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court in a civil revision proceeding. The petitioner, a contractor for a cattle fair market, had initially obtained a temporary injunction from the Senior Civil Judge, later upheld by the Additional District Judge, against an order by the Assistant Director, Local Government, Gujrat, which had stopped the holding of cattle fairs. The High Court, in revision, suspended the operation of the lower courts' judgments pending further hearing. The core legal question was whether an ad interim order passed by the High Court, which is subject to confirmation after hearing the parties, is appealable to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that such an interim order is not appealable, as it is not a final determination of the rights of the parties. The Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to seek relief by applying to the High Court to set aside the interim order, emphasizing that the High Court is the competent forum to decide the matter expeditiously.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is an ad interim order passed by the High Court, subject to confirmation after notice, appealable to the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a party aggrieved by an ad interim order passed by the High Court in civil revision proceedings?
ad interim ordercivil revisiontemporary injunctionleave to appealmaintainability of appealinterim relief

ORDER

1. NAM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 14th January, 1981, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi.

2. The petitioner had filed a suit to challenge the directions issued to the Chairman, Union Council, Alam Gar b the Assistant Director, Local Government, Gujrat, vide letter date 7th September, 1980, stopping the holding of the cattle fair market with immediate effect. The peti--tioner was the contractor appointed through auction for collection of fees levied on the sale of the animals in the cattle fair. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by his order dated 13th September, 1980 on the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner along with his suit suspended the order of the Assistant Director, Local Government, Gujrat stopping holding of the cattle fairs on certain terms. On appeal by the Assistant Director, Local Government, Gujrat, and the respondent herein the above order was maintained by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, on 22nd October, 1980.

3. However, on the revision petition pre--ferred before the High Court it was observed that the submission that respondent No. 1 (petitioner herein) did not have a prima facie case and the learned Courts below took an erroneous view of the law required consideration. Accordingly, the civil revision was admitted and in regard to the application for the grant of interim relief it was ordered that the operation of the judgment under revision, subject to notice, shall remain suspended meanwhile. This petition is directed against the last-mentioned part of the order.

4. The above recital of the facts shows that this petition is directed against ad interim order which is yet to be confirmed after hearing the petitioner herein. Such an order does not appear to be appealable to this Court, as held in Amir Khan v. Fateh Khan etc. 1978 SCMR 334. The best course for the petitioner is to apply for setting aside the order of interim relief and in view of the nature of the case we have no doubt that this matter will be taken up expeditiously by the High Court which competent forum to decide this matter.

5. This petition, with the above observations, stands dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.