Malik KHUDA BAKHSH AND Another vs Syed HAMID ALI SHAH
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition regarding the grant of a temporary injunction in a land dispute. The core legal question concerns the scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in interfering with the discretionary orders of subordinate courts relating to temporary injunctions. The Supreme Court held that revisional jurisdiction is meant primarily for correcting jurisdictional errors rather than discretionary decisions, unless the discretion has been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily, which was not the case here. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the revision but directed the trial court to ensure the expeditious disposal of the long-pending suit. The key principle laid down is that interference in revision with discretionary orders of subordinate courts is unwarranted unless such discretion is exercised arbitrarily or fancifully.
- Whether the High Court can interfere in revision with the discretionary exercise of power by a subordinate court regarding temporary injunctions?
- When does the exercise of discretion by a first appellate court warrant interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 26-5-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a civil revision arising out of grant of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff, was dismissed.
2. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners purchased 46 kanals 14 marlas of land through a registered sale deed. The respondent filed a suit on 12-8-1974 challenging the transaction and sought temporary injunction with, respect. To his claim to dig the earth from the suit land. The learned trial Court granted the temporary injunction subject to the lump sum deposit by the respondent of Rs.9,516 plus monthly deposit of Rs.,800. The petitioners accepted the order of the learned trial Court and did not challenge it, while the respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned District Judge on 15-1-1975. The entire land measuring 46 kanals 11 marlas was brought under temporary injunction and the lump sum amount was increased from Rs.9,516 to Rs.1,000. The petitioners then challenged the said order through a revision in the High Court, which having been dismissed, they have filed this leave to appeal petition to challenge the grant of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we agree with the learned Single Judge in the High Court that the present case is covered by the law laid down in Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan (1)PD1970SC139), wherein it was held that the revision of jurisdiction under section 115, C. P. C.Is meant primarily for correcting errors made by the Subordinate Courts in exercise of '
4. Jurisdiction and snot those which are made in their discretion unless the discretion is found to have been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily.
5. The discretion exercised by the first appellate Court in this case was neither fanciful nor arbitrary.
6. We, however, note that the learned Single Judge in the High Court did not notice that the suit was pending since 1974 and a temporary injunction having been issued since November 1974, there was a need for a direction for the speady disposal of the suit. The subject-matter of the suit was such that it should have been decided within a few months, or at least within a year. The learned trial Court would now do the needful for the disposal of the suit as soon as possible, preferably within a few months, failing which it would be desirable that the learned Court should submit a report with regard to the delay High Court.
7. With these observations this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 9 cases
- AJEET KUMAR Versus SHAKEEL AHMED 2017 CLCN 13
- LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (G) LTD. vs ASMATULLAH SHEIKH 1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1243
- LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. vs ASMATULLAH SHEIKH 1996 PLD Lahore 602
- Mian MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SAIGOL vs BCCI and others 1996 CLC 1390
- KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD AMIN And 4 Other 1989 MLD 1588
- KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY vs Sufi MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Other 1989 MLD 2987
- Haji MUHAMMAD MOOSA And ANOTHER vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN 1986 CLC 2951
- Khawaja MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION 1984 MLD 761
- TARIQ KAMAL AND Others vs Raja MAHFOOZ ALI AND OTHER 1982 CLC 1026