Haji DIN MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD LATIF
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court dismissing an application for an ad interim injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating the disputed land during the pendency of a civil revision petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing the temporary injunction and whether the petitioner was entitled to special leave to appeal against the discretionary order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the issuance of a temporary injunction is a matter of discretion and that the High Court committed no error of law or fact, particularly where the petitioner failed to approach the court with clean hands regarding the nature of possession and where any potential sale would remain subject to the outcome of the pending litigation. The Court laid down the principle that the refusal of a discretionary temporary injunction by the High Court, supported by valid reasoning, does not warrant interference or the grant of special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the refusal of a temporary injunction by the High Court warrants interference by the Supreme Court through special leave to appeal?
- Does a sale of property during the pendency of litigation remain subject to the result of that litigation?
- Can a party that fails to approach the court with clean hands claim an ad interim injunction as of right?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order dated 2-4-1980, whereby the High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2058/C/80, in a Civil Revision No. 504/13/79 which is still pending in that Court, By dismissing the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application, the High Court refused to issue any ad interim injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating the land in dispute till the decision of the revision petition, Even earlier thereto the High Court had refused the aforesaid prayers on 19-1-1980 and 10-7-1979.
2. The reason given by the High Court in its impugned order dated 2-4-1980 was that the petitioner had not come to the High Court with clean bands inasmuch as he all along gave the impression that he was in physical possession of the property in dispute, though it had later on transpired that this was not so and that he was only in symbolic possession. In its earlier order dated 10-7-1979, the High Court had observed that there was no necessity to issue any temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating the suit property inasmuch as if any sale was to be made that obviously would remain subject to the result of the litigation which was pending between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error of facts or of law in the impugned order of the High Court. Issuance of a temporary injunction was in the discretion of the High Court and if in the circumstances above explained it did not consider fit to exercise that discretion in favour of the petitioner, that is no ground by itself to grant special leave to appeal.
4. 'The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.