PERVEZ WAHEED vs PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH COLLECTOR, DISTRICT
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court in civil revision proceedings, which modified a trial court's grant of an interim injunction. The petitioner challenged recovery proceedings initiated by revenue authorities regarding a Takavi loan. The High Court had maintained the injunction but imposed conditions requiring the early disposal of the suit and the furnishing of security for the disputed amount. The core legal question was whether the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, possessed the authority to vary the terms of an interim injunction granted by a trial court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court acted within its legal authority. The Court affirmed that under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has full powers to correct errors committed by lower courts and to ensure that judicial discretion is exercised in accordance with sound legal principles. Consequently, the imposition of conditions, such as requiring security and directing the expedited disposal of a suit, was deemed reasonable and within the High Court's jurisdiction.
- Does the High Court have the power to vary the terms of an interim injunction granted by a trial court while exercising revisional jurisdiction?
- Can a High Court impose conditions, such as the furnishing of security, when maintaining an interim injunction in revision?
- Is the imposition of a condition for the early disposal of a suit by a revisional court considered a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This, petition for special leave -to appeal has arisen out of an order made in Civil Revision No. 935 of 1971 by a learned Single Judge 'in the Lahore High Court, whereby he partly modified an order of the lower Court granting an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner in a civil suit instituted by him' in the Court of the Additional Administrative Civil Judge, Multan. The petitioner had sought to challenge the legality of the recovery proceedings started by the Revenue authorities in respect of a Takavi loan of Rs. 5,009 obtained by him from the Collector of the District for the purpose of sinking a well on his land. The learned Single Judge maintained the injunc-- petition granted by the trial Court 'but imposed two conditions regarding the early disposal of the suit and the furnishing of security by the petitioner for the payment of the disputed amount in a lump sum in the event of dismissal of his suit.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that while acting fin revision the High Court bad no power to vary the terms of the injunction granted by the trial Court in the exercise of the discretion vesting in it under the law.
3. We see no substance in this contention, as the revisional Court acting under section 115 of the C. P.
4. G. Has full powers to correct any errors committed by the Courts below and to ensure that the discretion is exercised in accordance with sound judicial principles. The demand for a security, as a condition' precedent, for the grant of injunction and direction for the early disposal of the suit cannot be regarded as unreasonable conditions.
5. For she foregoing reasons no justification is made our for our interference. The petition, therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.