Mst. KISHAWAR SULTAN JEHAN BEGUM vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court which allowed a civil revision filed by the Government of Pakistan and set aside the District Judge's order dismissing the respondents' appeal on the ground of limitation against the issuance of a temporary injunction. The core legal question concerns the propriety of setting aside the dismissal of an appeal on limitation grounds regarding a temporary injunction in a civil suit arising from the cancellation of a public auction sale of a cinema by Settlement Authorities. The Supreme Court held that no fault could be found with the revisional order of the High Court, noting that the petitioner's civil suit and separate writ petition challenging the actual cancellation of the sale were still pending and she would not suffer any prejudice. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the District Judge's order dismissing an appeal as barred by limitation against the issuance of a temporary injunction?
- Does a party suffer prejudice when a temporary injunction matter is remanded or entertained while their substantive civil suit and writ petition challenging the cancellation of a sale remain pending?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 31-10-73 whereby the learned Judge in Chamber allowed Civil Revision No, 708 of 1968 filed by the Government of Pakistan and set aside the order of the learned District Judge, Lahore dated 25-9-1968 dismissing respondents' appeal against the issuance of temporary injunction on the ground of limitation.
2. ' Petitioner being the highest bidder in a public auction held by the Settlement Authorities on 12-4- 62 for the sale of Capital Cinema, Lahore, offered a bid of Rs, 36 lacs which was accepted. Sale was confirmed on 21-7-62. The amount was to be paid in 36 monthly installments. Having accepted compensation books for a sizable amount and also having liberally allowed several opportunities to the petitioner to make the payment, the Settlement Authorities issued a notice to her for the proposed cancellation of the sale on account of default. She challenged the legality of the notice )5, filing a civil suit and prayed for a temporary Injunction. This prayer vas resisted by the respondents but was allowed by the Civil Judge vide )red dated 25-7-68. The order was challenged in appeal by the respondents, before the District Judge on 23-9-1968 which was dismissed as barred by inn vide order dated 25-9-1968 which as stated earlier was successfully challenged by them in the High Court.
3. ' Learned counsel concedes that during the pendency of the suit the sale was cancelled on 28-3- 74 for default in payment of the price. This order has been separately assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in the High Court which has been admitted to full hearing and stay has also been granted, as stated before us.
4. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the view that no fault can be found with the revisional order of the learned Judge in Chamber. The petitioner's civil suit and also the writ petition are pending and obviously she does not stand to suffer in any manner. The petition is therefore dismissed.