Haji MUHAMMAD UMAR vs ASAD ALI SHAH and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an interim order issued by the High Court in a pending Constitution petition regarding a property dispute involving 332 Kanals of land. The petitioner challenged an interim order that prohibited the alienation of the disputed property, which had been reduced by one hundred Kanals in the impugned order. The Supreme Court addressed whether the interim reduction of the disputed area prejudiced the petitioner's position and whether the prohibition on alienation was necessary. The Court held that the prohibition on alienation was already covered by the doctrine of lis pendens, rendering the controversy over the specific interim order of little significance. Furthermore, the Court clarified that interim orders are based on tentative evaluations and do not possess finality, meaning the petitioner was not committed to the contents of their pending application. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, concluding that the apprehension of prejudice was premature. Leave to appeal was refused, affirming that interim findings do not constitute final adjudications on the merits of the case.
- Does an interim order prohibiting the alienation of property during litigation create a final commitment regarding the scope of the disputed area?
- Is a prohibition on the alienation of property during pending litigation necessary when the doctrine of lis pendens already applies?
- Do findings made while passing interim orders in a Constitution petition possess finality?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J. ---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an interim order of the High Court in a pending Constitution petition. The area of dissatisfaction with that order is a limited one.
Originally the property in dispute between the parties was about 332 Kanals of land. On an application of the petitioner which has not received Court's approval, the disputed area stands reduced by hundred Kanals.
2. The interim order prohibits the alienation pending litigation of the disputed property which under the impugned order is reduced by one hundred Kanals.
3. In the first place the prohibition on alienation is equally well covered by doctrine of lis pendens.
Hence the controversy is of little significance. Secondly the apprehension of the learned counsel that by such reduction of the area in dispute, the petitioner has been committed to the contents of his application which is yet to receive proper consideration is premature. While passing interim orders, the evaluation of the case is only tentative, one of first impression, the findings having no finality. No case is made out.
4. Leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- HUMAYAN ARSHAD Versus GHULAM RASOOL 2001 CLC 1291