Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 1775(1)

ABDUL GHAFOOR vs BASHIR AHMAD and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 1775(1)
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 210 of 1988
Date1988-04-27
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Dr. Javed Iqbal
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision arising from the trial court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The core legal question concerns whether interference is warranted with the concurrent discretionary orders of the lower courts refusing a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court held that the case is not a fit one for interference with the discretionary order of the trial court and accordingly dismissed the petition. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary orders regarding temporary injunctions passed by trial courts will not normally be interfered with by higher courts, and clarified that preliminary observations made by higher courts during such proceedings shall not influence the final decision on the merits of the suit.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a discretionary order of the trial court refusing a temporary injunction?
  • Do observations made by higher courts during interlocutory proceedings influence the final decision of the suit?
temporary injunctiondiscretionary ordercivil revisionleave to appealmerits of the suit

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from the order dated 19-1-1988 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Civil Revision, arising out of the refusal of the trial Court to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, was dismissed.

2. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not consider it a fit case for interference with the discretionary order of the trial Court.It is, however, observed that the views expressed by the higher Courts shall not influence the merits for the final decision of the suit.

3. This petition, with the foregoing observations, is dismissed.

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