Mian GHULAM KADIR vs DILMURAD AND Another
This matter originated as a dispute over a plot of land in Kotri Mohammad Kabir, initially granted to the respondent by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner challenged this grant through administrative appeals, eventually leading to a civil suit seeking a declaration that the property belonged to the Government. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sought an interim injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. While the trial court dismissed the application, the District Judge granted the injunction on appeal. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's revision application against that order. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in maintaining the District Judge's exercise of discretion regarding the grant of an interim injunction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that because the respondent had been allotted the land and had already raised construction upon it, the District Judge's discretion in granting the injunction was not exercised improperly. The principle established is that appellate courts will not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion regarding interim injunctions where the lower court's decision is supported by the factual circumstances of the case, such as existing possession and construction.
- Can an appellate court interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower court in granting an interim injunction?
- Is the existence of construction on disputed land a relevant factor in determining the grant of an interim injunction?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an order maintaining an interim injunction where discretion was exercised properly?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of plot of land No. 8 situated in the town of Kotri Mohammad Kabir which was granted to respondent No. 1 by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal before the Commissioner and the same was set aside. The revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. He then filed Civil Suit No. 119 of 1968 against respondent No. 1 for declaration that the property in dispute belongs to the Government. Along with the suit he also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. For interim injunction. This application was dismissed by the trial Court. In appeal, however, the learned District Judge, Nawab--shah, issued an injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order in Civil Revision Application No. 482, 1968, before the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench which was dismissed on the 16th March 1970.
2. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. In support of the petition, Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the property in dispute belongs to the petitioner and, therefore, respon--dent No. 1 has not acquired any right or title in it. The learned counsel, however, did not dispute that the land in dispute was allotted to the respondent No. 1 by the Deputy Commissioner and he has raised construction over it. In these circumstances, it is not possible for us to hold that the learned District Judge has exercised the discretion vested in him improperly. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.