MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Others vs Haji TALIB HUSSAIN And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the refusal of lower courts to grant a temporary injunction. The petitioners, who were parties to pending civil proceedings regarding an arbitration award for land, sought to restrain the respondents from pursuing a separate suit in a Revenue Court for rent recovery and ejectment. The core legal question was whether a Civil Court possesses the authority to issue a temporary injunction to stay proceedings pending before a Revenue Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that a Civil Court cannot grant an injunction to stay proceedings of another court that is not subordinate to it. The key principle laid down is that the power of a court to issue an injunction is limited by the hierarchy of the judicial system; specifically, a Civil Court lacks the jurisdiction to restrain proceedings in a Revenue Court because the latter is not subordinate to the former in the relevant context.
- Can a Civil Court issue a temporary injunction to stay proceedings pending in a Revenue Court?
- Is a Revenue Court considered subordinate to a Civil Court for the purpose of granting an injunction to stay proceedings?
- Does a Civil Court have the authority to restrain parties from pursuing litigation in a court that is not subordinate to it?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioners had moved the Civil Court for making an award given by an Arbitrator where under they were held entitled to the suit land subject to payment of Rs.2,50,000 as a rule of the Court. The respondents who claim to be purchasers of the suit land had raised objections to the said award and the matter is pending in a Civil Court. Meanwhile, the respondents instituted a suit against the petitioners in the Revenue Court for the recovery of rent and for their ejectment. The petitioners submitted an application before the Civil Court seized with the matter of the award for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in any manner with their possession over the disputed land. This prayer was refused and the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, who also dismissed the same vide order, dated 18-2-1982. The petitioners then preferred a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. A learned Judge of the said Court in a well-considered order rejected the revision petition holding, inter alia, that competently instituted proceedings before the revenue Court cannot be frustrated by the issuance of restraining order. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The orders of the Courts below do not require any interference not only for the reasons set out by them in their orders but also for the additional reason that an injunction cannot be granted by a Court to stay proceedings of another Court which is not subordinate to the Court from which injunction is sought. As the revenue Court is not subordinate to the Civil Court in the relevant regard, hence no injunction can be granted to stay its proceedings.
4. This petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
Cited by 3 cases
- QADIR BAKHSH and 2 others Versus WAHID BAKHSH 2007 SCMR 775
- FEROZ DIN Versus SARDAR ALI 1989 PLD 630
- Sh. MUHAMMAD MAZHAR UL HAQ vs Sh. IJAZULHAQ And, Other 1989 MLD 3522