ABDUL HAMID Represented By Legal Heirs And Others vs MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a civil revision against the refusal of a temporary injunction in a civil suit alleging nuisance caused by a factory. The High Court had partly allowed the revision by directing the respondents not to operate the factory during night hours after sunset. The core legal question involved the propriety of interfering with the High Court's discretionary order granting a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was no justification to interfere with the impugned interim order of the High Court, noting that the petitioners had not been vigilant regarding the progress of their suit in the trial court. The petition was accordingly dismissed with directions for the trial court to expedite and conclude the proceedings within six months upon receipt of the returned record, establishing the principle that interim orders in nuisance suits will not be disturbed where trial delays are partly attributable to lack of party vigilance and record transmission.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's discretionary order granting a temporary injunction in a nuisance suit?
- What is the responsibility of parties regarding the progress of a suit when trial court records are summoned to a higher forum?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 23-12-1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' civil revision, arising out of the refusal of their request for temporary injunction in a civil suit filed by them. Wherein complaint was made of nuisance, was partly allowed. The respondents were directed not to run their factory the source of alleged nuisance, during the night after the sunset time.
2. When questioned as to why their suit has not yet been decided, learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his ignorance. The learned counsel for the respondents /caveators, however, explained that the record of the trial Court having been summoned in the High Court in connection with the Revision Petition had not been returned. On further consultation in Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners then confirmed that the record had been summoned in the High Court, he had no knowledge about its further movement.
3. It appears that the petitioners have not been vigilant in so far as the progress of the suit is concerned. They should have made an application to the trial Court for early disposal of the suit after) requesting for the return of the record.
4. Be that as it may, in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification for interference with the impugned order of the High Court passed in the matter of grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of the civil suit.
5. It is, however, observed that nothing in this order or in the impugned order shall adversely affect the case of either party before the trial Court.
6. It is further observed that the petitioners shall make application/s for the return of the record to the trial Court as soon as possible. The trial Court would dispose of the suit within six months after the receipt of the record.
7. This petition accordingly, is dismissed.