BANNU SUGAR MILLS Ltd. vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Division Bench of the Sind High Court, which had affirmed a Single Judge's order dismissing the petitioner's application for an interim injunction. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from encashing a bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner during the pendency of the underlying suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in refusing to grant the temporary injunction to restrain the encashment of the bank guarantee. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts provided valid and cogent reasons for dismissing the application and that the impugned judgment was passed in a valid exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal error or grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the High Court. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by lower courts unless such discretion was exercised improperly or without valid legal basis.
- Can an appellate court interfere with the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by a lower court when valid and cogent reasons are provided?
- Is a party entitled to an interim injunction to restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee pending the disposal of a suit?
- 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
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of Sind High Court by which an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and in result the order passed by the learned Single Judge of that Court dismissing petitioner's application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with section 151 of the C . P. C . Was upheld. By that applie8tion petitioner prayed that pending the final disposal of the suit filed by him the respondents be prohibited from, enchasing the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner.
2. We find that the learned Single Judge in the High Court passed the impugned order dismissing petitioner's application for very valid and cogent reasons. Learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have also dismissed petitioner's appeal for the reasons that are unassailable. Since the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court has been passed in valid exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, it is not open to any exception in law. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.