MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 19 others vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB through Secretary (Colony) and 3 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of the petitioners' writ petition, whereby the High Court declined to grant interim relief to the petitioners in connection with the recovery of a certain sum of money. The core legal question concerns whether interference is warranted against a discretionary interim order passed by the High Court refusing interim relief while the main writ petition remains pending. The Supreme Court held that there is no justification to modify the interim order of the High Court as it is neither contrary to any law nor departs from any established legal principle. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that discretionary interim orders of the High Court will not be lightly interfered with by the apex court unless tainted by illegality or perversity.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an interim order of the High Court refusing interim relief during the pendency of a writ petition?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against an interim order when the main writ petition is still pending before the High Court?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The High Court, during the pendency of the petitioners' writ petition, declined to grant them interim relief sought by the petitioners in connection with the recovery of certain sum from them. The writ petition, according to learned counsel, is still pending. Leave to appeal has been sought only against interim order of the High Court, whereby interim relief was refused to the petitioners.
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we find no justification to modify the interim order of the High Court. It is neither against any law, nor any principle has been departed from.
3. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.