MUHAMMAD HANEEF vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through District
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner had filed a civil suit challenging the legality of a land sale and the permission granted by the Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. Initially, the trial court granted a temporary injunction to protect the petitioner's possession, which was subsequently withdrawn by the District Judge on appeal. The petitioner then filed a revision petition in the High Court, which initially directed the maintenance of status quo, but a subsequent order by a Single Judge withdrew this direction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether it should interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a revision petition. The Supreme Court held that it was inappropriate to interfere with such an interim order at this stage. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, with a directive that the High Court should endeavor to dispose of the pending revision petition within three months.
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a revision petition?
- Is a direction to maintain status quo subject to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order?
- Section 19, Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an interim order dated 8- 2-1987 of the Lahore High Court.
2. The petitioner filed a suit inter alia for declarations impugning the legality of a sale as well as the permission accorded by the Collector under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. He also filed an application for interim relief for the protection of his possession over the land in dispute during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court granted a temporary injunction to him but on appeal it was withdrawn by the District Judge. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and a direction with regard to maintenance of status quo was given. Later, by a detailed order dated 8-2-1.987 another learned Single Judge of the High Court withdrew the direction with regard to maintenance of status quo. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the last mentioned order.
3. It will be noticed that the petitioner is seeking leave to appeal from an interim order made by the High Court during the pendency of the revision petition. We do not think that it will be appropriate for us' to interfere with the interim order. However, we direct that the High Court may endeavour to dispose of the revision petition within three) months. With these observations this petition is dismissed.