ABDUR RAZZAQ vs ILAM DIN
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision in an interlocutory matter. The underlying dispute involved a suit for a perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner to restrain the respondent from increasing the height of a shop wall, which allegedly deprived the petitioner of the use of the shop's roof. An application for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was initially dismissed by the trial court, and a subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The High Court also dismissed the petitioner's revision petition against these concurrent findings. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court found that no valid grounds existed to warrant interference with the impugned order in an interlocutory matter. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the interim injunction.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts in interlocutory matters where no valid grounds are shown?
- Is a revision petition maintainable against an order dismissing an application for interim injunction?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 22-12-1975, dismissing his Civil Revision in an interlocutory matter.
2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner filed a suit for perpetual) injunction against the respondent for restraining him from raising the height' of the walls of his shop and thus depriving him use of the shop's roof. Along-with the suit he also filed an application under Order XXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. For interim injunction which was dismissed by the learned trial Court. He then filed an appeal against it which was dismissed by the Additional -District Judge on 28-10-1975. Feeling aggrieved he filed a revision A petition against the said order before the High Court which too was dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No good ground has been made out for interference with the impugned order in an interlocutory matter. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.