MUHAMMAD TARIQ Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute regarding the inheritance of land, where the petitioner claimed title through an oral will and the respondents claimed title through a registered written will. The petitioner sought a temporary injunction to maintain possession, which was initially granted by the trial court but subsequently set aside by the District Judge. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision application, noting that the property was already in the custody of a court-appointed Receiver, rendering the claim of possession untenable. The Supreme Court addressed the petitioner's grievance that certain observations made by the High Court regarding possession might prejudice the trial. The Court held that observations made during interlocutory proceedings are tentative and do not bind the trial court, which must decide the suit on its own merits. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that property held by a Receiver is in custodia legis, precluding the necessity for a temporary injunction. The petition was dismissed, clarifying that the trial court remains uninfluenced by the High Court's preliminary observations.
- Do observations made by a court during interlocutory proceedings prejudice the final decision of a suit?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted for property that is already in the possession of a court-appointed Receiver?
- Is property held by a Receiver considered to be in custodia legis?
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑ In this petition for leave to appeal arising out of the judgment of the Lahore High Court in a Civil Revision, there is a dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the first three respondents on the other setting up a rival claim that the land in dispute was bequeathed to each party by means of will by the deceased owner one Mst. Gul Bibi. The petitioner is relying on an oral will, whereas the first three respondents based their claim on a written will which was registered subsequent to the death of the testator.
2. The petitioner has brought suit for declaration and permanent injunction by way of consequential relief claiming to be in possession of the land in dispute. His application for a temporary injunction against the said respondents to restrain them from interfering with his possession was granted by the trial Court by ordering "that status quo will be maintained so that whichever party is in possession will continue to remain so." As the said respondents were aggrieved by this order they challenged it in an appeal which was allowed by the learned District Judge, who found that the petitioner had not made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The result was that the order granting temporary injunction was set aside.
3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed in appeal recalling the order for maintenance of status quo the petitioner approached the High Court in revision and a learned Judge dismissed the revision application. In doing so the learned Judge referred to another pending case before the High Court, viz. L.P.A. No. 14 of 1968, in which the High Court had entrusted the suit land to the Superdari of Mehr‑ Khurshid Ahmad, the father of the petitioner. From this the learned Judge concluded that the petitioner's claim that he is in actual possession of the land was wholly untenable. From the order of the learned Judge it further appears that the said Mehr Khurshid Ahmad was appointed as a Receiver by the Court.
4. In support of this petition for leave to appeal from the order of the High Court the only grievance of the learned counsel is that certain observations made by the learned Judge of the High Court are likely to prejudice the case of the petitioner at the trial which were not justified at the stage of interlocutory relief. On the perusal of the impugned judgment the only objectionable observations of which grievance is made relates to the claim of the petitioner that his father, the said Mehr Khurshid Ahmad, was holding possession on his behalf. It is well settled that any decision made or observations made by the Court while deciding an interlocutory application, like the one for the temporary injunction, are tentative in nature and cannot operate to prejudice any party at the time of the decision of the suit. We are sure that the observations to which objection has been taken were made on this basis. We may, however, clarify for removal of doubts that no party shall be prejudiced by the expression of an opinion by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment, while deciding the suit, which shat be decided on its own merits.
5. As for the relief sought by the petitioner suffice it to say that. if at the time of the making of application for temporary injunction.' the disputed property was in possession of Mehr Khurshid Ahmad , his capacity as Receiver, it will apparently be deemed to be in custodia legis and therefore, the question of grant of temporary injunction in terms sought by the petitioner did not arise. Thus no exception can be taken to the order passed by the High Court. With these observations this petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.