NAZIR AHMAD vs ABDUL QAYYUM BHATTI And Other
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat, along with an application for a temporary injunction. Although an initial status quo order was passed, it was subsequently vacated by the trial court on 30-10-1979. The petitioner's appeal before the District Judge was dismissed on 2-2-1980, and a subsequent civil revision in the High Court was also dismissed in limine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference was warranted against concurrent discretionary orders of the lower courts refusing to grant interim relief. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the case did not present a fit ground for interference under discretionary jurisdiction, particularly as no serious question of law was involved. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent discretionary orders refusing interim relief unless a serious question of law or a patent illegality is demonstrated.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent orders of lower courts refusing interim relief?
- Does the refusal of a temporary injunction by courts below warrant interference when no serious question of law is involved?
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- The facts giving rise to the present Petition are briefly, that Nazir Ahmad, petitioner, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents, which is still pending ire the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat. Along with the plaint he filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. Initially, the learned Senior Civil Judge passed a status quo order in petitioner's favour, but subsequently on 30-10-1979, he vacated the same. The petitioner filed an appeal against the refusal of the interim relief by the learned Senior Civil Judge, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gujrat, on 2-2-1980. The petitioner filed Civil Revision against this order in the High Court, which to, was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
Hence the present petition.
2. We, have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and,, considered the facts of he case. We do not think this a fit case for interference with the orders of the courts below in refusing to grant interim relief to the petitioner, specially when it has not been shown that it involves any serious question of law. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.