MUHAMMAD AFZAAL CHUGHTAI vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH And Another
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had stayed trial court proceedings in a civil suit for money recovery. The petitioner had originally obtained an order from the trial court granting the respondents leave to defend the suit, subject to the condition of furnishing the entire suit amount or a bank guarantee. The respondents challenged this conditional leave to defend by filing a civil revision in the High Court, which subsequently stayed the trial court proceedings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's interim order staying the trial proceedings warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was discretionary in nature. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court's interim order while the civil revision remained pending, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts generally decline to interfere with discretionary interim orders passed by a High Court during the pendency of a civil revision.
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a civil revision?
- Is an order staying trial court proceedings while a civil revision is pending subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 12th April, 1989 whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts are that a suit was filed by the petitioner before Additional District Judge, Lahore for recovery of money. During the course of the hearing permission was granted to the respondents to defend the suit on the condition of furnishing the entire suit money or bank guarantee equivalent thereto. Aggrieved of the same the respondents challenged the said order by way of a civil revision and the High Court while admitting the civil revision of the respondents directed that the proceedings of suit before the trial Court be stayed. --This interim order is being challenged before us by the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel that the learned Judge of the High Court should have not stayed the proceedings. But it is a discretionary order which does not call for any interference as the civil revision is pending before the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.