Khawaja FEROZE DIN vs SARDAR ALI and 3 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal of a temporary injunction by the lower courts regarding evacuee property settlement. The core legal question concerns whether a civil court can grant a temporary injunction to restrain a Deputy Settlement Commissioner from giving effect to an order amending a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) after the repeal of evacuee laws, and whether the petitioner made out a case for injunctive relief after losing multiple prior rounds of litigation culminating in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, affirming that Settlement Authorities constitute an exclusive statutory hierarchy not subordinate to civil courts, thereby barring civil courts from staying their proceedings. The court also held that a temporary injunction cannot be granted where the petitioner has already failed on merits in prior litigation up to the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that civil courts cannot issue injunctions to stay proceedings or executive actions of specialized quasi-judicial tribunals and authorities, such as Settlement Authorities, that are not subordinate to the civil court hierarchy.
- Can a civil court grant a temporary injunction to restrain proceedings of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner or Settlement Authorities?
- Whether Settlement Authorities are subordinate to civil courts for the purpose of issuing injunctions?
- Does a party who has failed on merits up to the Supreme Court in earlier rounds of litigation make out a prima facie case for a temporary injunction in a subsequent civil suit?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision; which had arisen out of the refusal of the trial Court to grant in his favour a temporary injunction. The petitioner las argued his petition himself. He seems to be fully acquainted with he facts and circumstances of the case as also well-versed and aware the law involved.
2. ' In view of the possible consequences of the present proceedings is necessary to reproduce the impugned order passed by the High court in its entirety: "This Civil Revision calls, in question an order dated 9-12-1985 of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, whereby the petitioner-plaintiff's appeal arising out of an interim order was dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to the settlement of evacuee property. 'here is a long background of litigation in which the parties had been locked eversince 1959. Initially it was allotted provisionally to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner on 26-11-1969. There had been successive orders either confirming or reversing it. Ultimately in a writ petition brought by the respondents, it was set aside. The petitioner claimed that although the P.T.O. May have been set aside, yet the P.T.D. Obtained by him was left unaffected. The Settlement Authorities by their order dated 27-2-1985 directed to amend the P.T.D. Issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by it, he brought the present civil suit contending that after the repeal of (evacuee) laws, respondent No,4, namely, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no power to order the amendment of the P.T.D.
3. He made an application for a temporary injunction in order to restrain him from giving effect to his order dated 27-2-1985. The Courts below refused the injunction.
3. It appears that the petitioner failed upto the Supreme Court in earlier rounds. Now he has taken to a civil suit and seeks an injunction against the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who seems to have exercised his powers conferred upon him by law. In Muhammad Siddique and others v. Haji Talib Hussain and others (1985 SCM R 1918) the rule laid down was that "injunction could not be granted by a Court to stay proceedings of another Court which is not subordinate to Court from which injunction is sought". There can be no mistake about the fact that a Deputy Settlement Commissioner is not subordinate to a civil Court nor even for that matter the High Court. They are the Courts of their own hierarchy created by Statute exercising ' their exclusive jurisdiction.
4. Obviously the proceedings before them cannot be stayed. The revision petition is dismissed in limine."
5. ' The petitioner made two main submissions in support of this petition: (i), that the trial of the suit has concluded and the next date is tomorrow for announcement of the judgment, therefore, this Court should adjourn this case; and (ii) that even if, it be assumed that the Supreme Court judgment in the earlier round had finally settled the dispute on merits between the parties, the P.T.D. Earlier issued in favour of the petitioner not having been formally cancelled, there was no justification for the Set ement Authorities to have directed A its cancellation, notwithstanding the Supreme Court judgment against the petitioner.
6. ' After considerable argument and discussion on the points raised by the petitioner we did not agree with him. He also made an oral request for withdrawal of the petition which we refused. The petitioner having lost upto the Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation no elaborate discussion is necessary to hold that on merits the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for gant of temporary injunction. The approach of all the learned Courts below in this behalf, therefore, is unexceptionable. This is in addition to the B' question of law noticed by the High Court in the imugned judgment. This petition, therefore, merits to be dismissed. We have refrained from entering into elaborate discussion lest the petitioner might suffer prejudice ranging from punitive proceedings before the concerned Court/forum.
7. ' The plea for adjournment, to say the least; is frivolous. The motive obviously underlying this request is to avoid any adverse finding by this Court. The request for withdrawal also for the same reason is not bona fide. The same, therefore, are rejected.
8. ' In the light of what has been stated above this petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. The petitioner has been told to inform the learned trial Judge tomorrow, if the case is fixed for announcement as stated by him, not to announce the judgment till the petitioner is able to produce a copy of this order before the learned Judge.
9. ' When the needful is done in this behalf the learned Judge, in case he decides to dismiss the petitioner's suit, shall also examine the conduct of the petitioner in its various shades in the entire litigation, with whatever consequential orders and directions the learned Judge might deem it just, appropriate and necessary; hut, subject to law.
10. ' With the foregoing findings, orders and observations, leave to appeal is refused.