ZAFARULLAH KHAN AND 7 Others vs ABDUL REHMAN AND 4 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order passed by the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, which directed the petitioners to furnish security for mesne profits in the sum of Rs. 5,000 per annum as a condition for setting aside the appointment of a Receiver during the pendency of the suit. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with interim orders regarding the estimation of mesne profits and furnishing of security in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that interim orders of this nature ought not to be interfered with in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, and found no merits to differ with the High Court's estimation of mesne profits. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with discretionary interim orders relating to security for mesne profits passed by the High Court.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with interim orders regarding the furnishing of security for mesne profits in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction?
- Can an interim order setting aside the appointment of a Receiver subject to furnishing security be challenged through a petition for leave to appeal?
- Article 58, Constitution of Pakistan
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioners undertook to furnish security for mesne profits during the pendency of the suit as a condition for setting aside the appointment of a Receiver by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The Letters Patent Bench accepted the prayer and allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to furnish security for mesne profits in the sum of Rs. 5,000 per annum, from the date of the institution of the, suit. It is against this order that the petitioners seek leave to appeal.
2. The petition is wholly misconceived as it is not the intention of the framer of the Constitution that interim orders of the nature indicated above, should be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 58. On merits too we see no reason to differ with the estimation of mesne profits by the High Court.
3. The petition is dismissed.