Pakistan Case Law
1985 SCMR 148

FEROZE DIN And Others vs EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1985 SCMR 148
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.174 of 1977 Civil Revision No.125 of 1977
Date1984-06-03
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi
Authored byNasim Hasan Shah
ResultPetition refused
Summary

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court dated 15-2-1977, which dismissed a revision petition challenging the District Judge's order dated 27-1-1977 refusing an interim injunction to the petitioners. The core legal question concerns whether the refusal of a temporary injunction by the lower courts, grounded on the failure to establish a prima facie case, warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit as the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case, and further noted that the underlying suit would likely have been decided by the passage of time, rendering the interim matter moot. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal, affirming that appellate interference in interlocutory injunction matters is unwarranted where no prima facie case is established and the main proceedings have likely concluded.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings refusing a temporary injunction where no prima facie case is established?
  • Does the likely conclusion of the main suit render a petition against an interlocutory injunction order unfit for interference?
temporary injunctionprima facie casepetition for leave to appealcivil revisioninterlocutory orders

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The District Judge had dismissed the petition for injunction filed by the petitioners on 27-1-1977. This order was challenged by a revision before the High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide his order, dated 15-2-1977. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the said order and has come up for hearing today.

2. The injunction was refused on the ground that the petitioners had failed to make out a prima facie case. The High Court agreed with this assessment and there is hardly anything which the learned counsel for the petitioners could urge in support of this petition.

3. Moreover, the injunction was refused by the District Judge vide an order passed by him on 27-1- 1977. The suit, in which this injunction was sought, 'has, in all probability, since been decided by now.

4. The learned counsel, however, knew nothing about the fate of the said) suit.

5. This is, therefore, not at all a fit case for interference.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.