Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 1636

SOOMAR KHAN LAHROOMAL And Another vs MAUDHOMAL

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 1636
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 123-K and 124-K of 1986 F.R.A. Nos. 92
Date1986-06-14
Judge(s)Abdul Qadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza
Authored byAbdul Qadir Shaikh
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via petitions for leave to appeal challenging interim orders passed by the High Court during the pendency of appeals filed by the petitioners. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the discretionary interim orders issued by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had passed the impugned interim orders in the valid exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to warrant interference with these orders and dismissed the petitions. The key principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court where such orders are found to be within the scope of the High Court's valid discretionary jurisdiction.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court when such orders are within the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction?
  • Is a petition against an interim order maintainable if the High Court exercised its discretion validly?
interim ordersdiscretionary jurisdictionHigh Courtappellate jurisdictionSupreme Court

ORDER

1. ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH, J.--These petitions are directed against interim orders passed by the High Court in the appeals filed by thepetitioners which are pending. Since these orders have been passed in valid exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court, interference is not called for.

2. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.