Mst. AURANG ZAIB BIBI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Collector, Multan
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's revision application. The petitioner had challenged the concurrent orders of the lower courts, namely the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby her application for the issuance of a temporary injunction pending the disposal of her suit for declaration was rejected. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in exercising their discretion regarding the grant of a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court held that no question of law was involved and that the discretion exercised by the lower courts in refusing the temporary injunction was not open to any exception on grounds of law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that appellate and revisional courts will not interfere with the proper exercise of judicial discretion by lower courts in interlocutory matters unless a clear error of law is demonstrated.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent refusal of a temporary injunction by lower courts when no question of law is involved?
- Is the exercise of discretion by lower courts in declining a temporary injunction open to exception without a demonstrable error of law?
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 17-3-1985 dismissing petitioner's revision application against the order of the Civil Judge, Multan, dated 14-3-1984, by which petitioner's application for the issuance of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit for declaration filed by her was rejected, which order was upheld on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Multan.
2. After having heard the learned counsel in the light of record before us, we find that no question-of law is involved, and the discretion exercised by the Courts below is not open to any exception on grounds of law.
3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.