FOUR FRIENDS Versus DOMCX BORIC
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a civil petition for special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a review of a previous order refusing a temporary injunction is warranted when subsequent events, namely the granting of permission to sue in forma pauperis, have occurred. The Supreme Court held that the review petition was misconceived because the initial refusal was justified at the time it was made, as no plaint was pending before permission to sue as a pauper was granted, and the court had also found prima facie evidence that the petitioner's claim had been satisfied. The key principle laid down is that subsequent developments, such as the later allowance of an application to sue in forma pauperis, do not furnish a valid ground for reviewing a past order that was legally correct when passed, especially when fresh applications and orders can be pursued before the lower courts based on the changed circumstances.
- Whether a review of an order refusing a temporary injunction is maintainable on the ground that permission to sue in forma pauperis has subsequently been granted?
- Can provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure be invoked for granting a temporary injunction before permission to sue in forma pauperis is granted?
- Does the subsequent allowance of an application to sue in forma pauperis justify the modification of a past appellate order?
- Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure
- section 151, Code of Civil Procedure
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J .‑This petition is barred by 18 days, but we have heard the same on merits in view of the fact that the petitioner Company is not represented by, counsel, and the matter has been argued before us by its Managing :Director who has asked for a hearing on compassionate grounds. This is, of course subject to all just exceptions
2. The petitioner seeks review of the order of this Court dated the 22nd of November 1973, by which civil petition for special leave to Appeal bearing No. 290 of 1973 was dismissed.
3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner Company, acting through its Managing Partner, Capt. Zaheeruddin Macci, had filed an application in the Court of a Civil Judge of the First Class at Lahore for permission to sue the respondents in forma pauperis for the recovery of Rs. 7,60,000 plus interest on account of the sums due to it as sub‑Contractor under respondent No. 1 for the construction of certain buildings connected with the Chashma Barrage. Along with this application, the petitioner also made an application under, Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code Civil Procedure for grant of a temporary injunction to retrain respondent No. 2 i. e. Water and Power Development Authority from finalising the bills payable to respondent No. 1 till the final disposal of this case. The trial Court refused to grant the temporary injunction prayed for, and the petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the High Court. It was in these circum stances that he filed the Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, which was dismissed by this Court on the ground that until such time as permission had been granted to the petitioner to sue in forma pauperis, there was no plaint before the Civil Court, and therefore the provisions of Order XXXIX, could not be invoked for the grant of a temporary injunction at that stage. We also observed that there was prima facie evidence to show that the petitioner's claim had been satisfied by the respondent. On both these grounds we considered that the Courts below were right in refusing to grant any temporary relies' to the petitioner.
4. Review of this order is now sought on the ground that permission has at last been given to the petitioner to sue in 'forma pauperis, to sue it is no longer correct to say that there is no suit at present pending before the civil Court. Some other grounds are also urged as to the merits of the case.
5. It will be seen that the prayer for review is misconceived, as the refusal of the trial Court to grant the temporary injunction to the petitioner in the initial stage was due to the fact that he had not yet been allowed to sue in forma pauperies. That was a good ground at that stage, and it continued to operate even when the case came to us in this Court. We also observed that there was a document prima facie showing that the petitioner claim against the main contractor had been fully satisfied. The fact that the petitioner's application for the grant of permission to sue in forma pauperis has now been allowed, does not justify a review of the previous order, specially when he has again renewed the same prayer before the trial Court and fresh orders have been passed in that behalf. The petitioner informed us at the Bar that he would again come to us by way of special leave to appeal as the lower Courts have refused to grant him temporary relief in spite of his having been granted permission to sue in forma pauperis. We will certainly examine the new petition as and when it comes up before us, but that does no; justify any modification of the previous order made by us on the 22nd of November 1973.
6. As a result, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
7. Petition dismissed.