Dr. IRSHAD HASAN KHAN vs LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of the concurrent refusal of the lower courts to grant a temporary injunction to the petitioner during the pendency of a civil suit, which order had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with the concurrent exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the lower courts regarding the grant of interim injunctive relief. The Supreme Court held that the case was not a fit one for interference with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the lower courts in refusing a temporary injunction, while observing that the interim orders would not influence the trial. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with concurrent discretionary orders passed by subordinate courts on interlocutory matters like temporary injunctions unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent refusal of lower courts to grant a temporary injunction?
- Do observations made on the question of temporary injunction influence the course of the trial of the civil suit?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the dismissal of petitioner's Civil Revision, calling in question refusal of the trial Court to grant him temporary injunction during the pendency of his suit--The refusal was also affirmed by the appellate Court.
2. After hearing both the learned counsel, we do not consider it a fit case for interference with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised in the matter of grant of temporary injunction. It is further observed that the orders passed on the question of temporary injunction shall not in any way influence the course of trial of the civil suit.
3. With this observation leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.