Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SHARIF And Others Versus NASIR AHMAD And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' First Appeal Against Order (F.A.O.) regarding an injunction granted by the Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad. The underlying dispute arose from the dissolution of a partnership business involving flour mills, an ice factory, and cold storage. Following an alleged mutual division of assets, the respondents filed a suit for specific performance and challenged the petitioners' title to certain properties, obtaining a temporary injunction to restrain the petitioners from alienating the disputed property. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly affirmed the trial court's discretionary order granting a status quo injunction. The Supreme Court held that the injunction was merely regulatory in nature and that the lower courts had exercised their discretionary powers appropriately. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that such discretionary orders are rarely disturbed at the leave-to-appeal stage, especially when they can be recalled upon a final adjudication of the suit.
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent discretionary orders of lower courts granting a status quo injunction?
- Is a status quo order in a suit for specific performance considered a regulatory measure?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed when the lower courts have exercised their discretion in granting a temporary injunction?
ORDER
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 9-9-89, whereby the petitioners' FA.O. Against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad dated 6-6-1989 was dismissed.
Muhammad petitioner No.1 and Rana Muhammad Sadiq respondent No.2 were the original partners in two flour mills, one ice factory and cold storage. In order to avoid income-tax the petitioner No.1 included his wife and sister and respondent No.2 included Ashfaq Ahmad as partners and with the income, the parties purchased some land in the joint names of the petitioners and respondent No.2.
In the month of September, 1987 the parties mutually agreed to divide the joint business. The respondent No.2 was given 2 flour mills and 21 acres of land and the petitioners retained ice- factory, cold storage and 95 Kanals and 15 Marlas of land through valid mutations plus a sum of Rs.1,00,000 in cash. The respondents claimed the ice-factory and the cold-storage through an allegedly forged document and sealed it through a Criminal Court. Respondent No.2 executed an agreement to sell dated 17-5-1987 in favour of the respondent No.1 of the land measuring 95 Kanals 15 Marlas. Thereafter the respondent No.1 filed a suit in collusion with respondent No.2 against the petitioners for possession through specific performance and also challenged the sale in favour of the petitioners. An application for injunction restraining the petitioners from further alienation of the property in dispute was also filed before the Civil Court, which was granted vide order dated 6-6- 1989. Appeal against this order filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the High Court vide impugned order.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the findings of the Courts below, we have come to the conclusion that this petition has no merit which needs dismissal forthwith. The status quo order given in favour of the respondents by the lower Courts is regulatory in nature and the same was affirmed by the learned High Court in appeal. The learned counsel states that the petitioners want to sell or mortgage a portion of the suit property for the purpose of meeting the litigation expenses. It is a case of double discretionary powers exercised by the two Courts below which is scarcely interfered by this Court because it can be recalled when the petitioners have succeeded in getting a final order in their favour. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Afzal Zullah3,959 judgments
- Syed Usman Ali Shah154 judgments