Haji AZIZ MUHAMMAD vs Haji JAN MUHAMMAD
Haji Aziz Muhammad sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his civil revision against the District Judge's order concerning an interlocutory matter relating to an interim injunction. The petitioner had filed a suit for a declaration that he was the owner-in-occupation of the suit land and that his ejectment order was illegal, alongside an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Civil Judge, the District Judge, and subsequently the High Court all dismissed the application and subsequent challenges. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core question of whether interference was warranted in concurrent interlocutory orders regarding temporary injunctions. Holding that the three lower courts had successively considered and dismissed the application and that no important question of law or legal defect was demonstrated, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as meritless, establishing that concurrent interlocutory findings on interim injunctions without substantial legal defects shall not be disturbed by the apex court.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent interlocutory orders passed by lower courts regarding temporary injunctions?
- Does an interlocutory matter concerning an interim injunction necessarily require leave to appeal in the absence of an important question of law?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Haji Aziz Muhammad petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 22-11-1983 dismissing his civil revision against the order of the District Judge, Rajanpur, in an interlocutory matter relating to interim injunction. The facts briefly are that Haji Aziz Ahmad (petitioner) filed a suit against his brother Haji Jan Muhammad for a declaration to the effect that he was owner-in-occupation of the suit land and that the order of his ejectment passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Rajanpur was illegal. Along with the suit he also moved an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. For temporary injunction. This application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 18-7-1983. He then filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the District Judge, Rajanpur. Feeling aggrieved he filed a civil revision before the High Court. After fully considering the matter the High Court also dismissed the revision.
Still not satisfied he has come up to this Court through the present petition.
2. As already observed the petition relates to an interlocutory matter. Three Courts have successively considered and dismissed the application for interim injunction. The petitioner's counsel has not been able to raise any important question of law requiring decision by this Court nor has he been able to show any defect of law in the impugned order.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any merit