Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Shamshad Begum against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed her civil revision regarding a dispute with the Lahore Development Authority. The petitioner had originally filed a suit for a perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the respondent from demolishing her house, and concurrently filed an application for a temporary injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court dismissed the application for a temporary injunction, and subsequent appeals to the District Judge and the High Court were also unsuccessful. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the refusal of interlocutory relief warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by the lower courts in an interlocutory matter. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court generally declines to disturb concurrent findings of lower courts in discretionary interlocutory proceedings.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by lower courts in interlocutory matters?
- Can a petitioner obtain a temporary injunction to restrain the demolition of a property during the pendency of a suit for perpetual injunction?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Mst. Shamshad Begum seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, dated 2-12-1984, dismissing her civil revision.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent in the Court of learned Civil judge, at Lahore, and also prayed for a temporary injunction through -an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the C.P. C. Praying that the respondent (L.D.A.) may be restrained from demolishing her house during the pendency of the suit. The application for grant of temporary injunction was argued before the learned trial Court and was dismissed vide order, dated 7-5-1984. She filed an appeal against it before the District Judge, Lahore, which was dismissed on 22-7-1989. She then filed a revision petition before the High Court which to, met the same fate.
Hence the present petition.
3. We issued notice to the respondent and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties at some length we do not consider it a fit case for interfering with the exercise of its judicial discretion by the Courts below in an interlocutory matter. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.