Pakistan Case Law
1994 SCMR 2031

HAROON MIRZA vs JAWAD MIR MUHAMMADI and 14 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1994 SCMR 2031
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Constitutional Petition No, 3/1092 Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 578
Date1993-11-23
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial
ResultLeave refused
Summary

This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the High Court, whereby the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice for allegedly violating a status quo order and committing contempt of court. The core legal question concerns whether the Supreme Court should interfere with interlocutory proceedings and pending show-cause notices before a final adjudication by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that no good ground was made out for interference at this premature stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the Supreme Court will generally not interfere with interlocutory orders or pending matters in the High Court where no final order has been rendered.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory show-cause notice issued by the High Court for contempt of court?
  • Is leave to appeal granted against a pending interlocutory matter where no final order has been passed by the High Court?
leave to appealinterlocutory ordercontempt of courtstatus quoSupreme Court jurisdiction

ORDER

NASIM HASAN SHAH, C.J.---This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against an interlocutory order whereby the petitioner herein was issued a notice to show cause why action should not be taken against him for violating an order of status quo passed by the High Court and why he should not be punished for having committed Contempt of the Court. No final order has been passed and the matter is still pending in the High Court.

2. No good ground is made out for interference by this Court at this stage of the proceedings.

3. Dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.