MAKROO alias CHAHAT vs Haji SHAN MUHAMMAD and 9 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court regarding the refusal of a temporary injunction. The core legal question presented is whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, acted erroneously by issuing an order that effectively nullified previous directions passed by the Supreme Court in the same matter. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the nullification of earlier Supreme Court orders carried prima facie weight. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's interference. The Court held that the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court shall remain suspended pending the final disposal of the appeals. The key principle established is that the High Court's revisional powers cannot be exercised in a manner that undermines or nullifies the effectiveness of prior orders issued by the Supreme Court in the same litigation.
- Can the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction pass an order that nullifies the effectiveness of earlier orders passed by the Supreme Court?
- Does the refusal of a temporary injunction by both the trial court and the appellate court warrant interference by the High Court in revision?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants' side in suits pending before a Civil Court, against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents/plaintiffs'
2. Civil Revisions. The revisions had arisen out of refusal by the trial Court to grant temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiffs' side. The appellate Court had affirmed the orders of refusal. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction has reversed the lower Courts' orders, therefore, these two petitions for leave to appeal.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended with respect, that the learned Judge in the High Court has fallen into error, because the effect of the acceptance of the revisions by the High Court is that the effectiveness of the earlier orders passed by the Supreme Court in this matter has been nullified through the act of the High Court.
4. We after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents/caveator on the point, feel satisfied that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has, prima facie, force. This and other questions raised in these petitions require examination. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted.
5. ' No security.
6. ' The impugned judgment/orders shall remain suspended as earlier ordered. The appeals shall be prepared on the present record with direction for filing of all additional documents which would be necessary for the disposal of the appeals.
7. ' Leave to .