ABRAR AHMAD KHAN TAREEN vs MUNAWAR SAEED
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed in limine as time-barred a first appeal regarding an interim injunction. The underlying matter arose from a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, wherein the trial court had granted an interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, restraining the petitioner from alienating the land or changing its complexion. The Supreme Court declined to enter into the merits regarding the competency of the appeal and the refusal to condone delay by the High Court, noting that the matter pertained to an interim regulatory order operative during the pendency of litigation. The Court held that parties affected by an interim injunction are entitled at any time, upon showing cause, to seek appropriate amendments or modifications, such as requesting the court to require the plaintiff to deposit or guarantee the balance sale price, particularly if there is inordinate delay in concluding the suit. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
- Whether an interim injunction order passed during the pendency of a civil suit can be modified or amended upon cause being shown?
- Can a party restrained by an interim injunction in a specific performance suit request the court to direct the plaintiff to deposit or guarantee the balance sale price?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to grant leave to appeal against interlocutory interim regulatory orders where the main suit is still pending?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dated 15-7-1992.
2. There existed an agreement to sell dated 27-6-1989 whereunder the appellant had undertaken to sell 56 Kanals 14, Marlas of agricultural land situated in Village Nangal Sadhan, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. The respondent instituted a civil suit claiming specific performance of it.
Pending the decision in the suit he sought interim relief by an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Praying as hereunder:- "The respondent may be restrained from alienating, gifting, selling, transferring the suit land and from raising any construction thereon, in any way, whatsoever. The respondent may also be restrained from changing the nature and complexion of the suit land in any way whatsoever, while granting ad interim injunction, status quo qua the suit land may kindly be ordered to be maintained."
3. This application was contested by the petitioner but was allowed by the trial Court on 28-4-1991.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the District Judge. The Additional District Judge disposed of the matter without going into the question of competency of appeal and dismissed it as being without merit.
4. The petitioner was then advised to file a first appeal in the High Court, as, according to the petitioner, the subject-matter of the suit in which this application had been made was beyond the jurisdiction of the District Judge. The High Court dismissed the first appeal in limine as time-barred notwithstanding the explanation by the petitioner that he had gone and obtained adjudication from a forum not possessed of the jurisdiction in the matter.
5. We do not propose going into the merits of the question of competency of appeal, the refusal to condone the delay and the bona fide of the petitioner because the matter relates to an interim regulatory order valid only for the purposes of and during the pendency of the litigation. The parties affected by it are at all times entitled on cause being shown to get appropriate amendment in it.
The grievance of the petitioner is that while such a restraint was being imposed on him in the matter of alienation of the property the plaintiff/respondent should have been called upon to deposit or guaranteed the balance amount due as price of the land. We do not think that there is any absolute restraint on the petitioner in making such a request to the Court as this aspect of the matter has not been considered by it in the interim order that has been passed. If there is inordinate delay in disposing of the suit itself then also such a request can be made with a view to seek suitable alteration in the interim order.
6. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Hence leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 6 cases
- Mls. BHIMRA TEXTILE MILLS vs JAMEEL AHMED and others 2009 PLD Lahore 514
- MUHAMMAD QASIM Versus TAHIR SALEEM 2007 MLD 118
- MUHAMMAD QASIM Versus TAHIR SALEEM 2004 MLD 1820
- Haji GHULAM RASOOL vs MIAN JAVAID AHMAD ZIA and another 2004 PLJ Lahore 315
- Haji GHULAM RASOOL vs Mian JAVED AHMED ZIA and anothers 2004 YLR 361
- Messrs YOUNUS TEXTILE MILLS vs MUHAMMAD FAZAL TAYYAB 2004 MLD 1081