MAKROO alias CHAHAT vs Haji SHAH MUHAMMAD and 9 others
This matter involves civil appeals against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had granted interim injunctions in favor of the plaintiffs-respondents in suits for declaration of ownership of land. The trial court and the District Judge had previously dismissed the applications for temporary injunctions. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the interim injunctions were properly granted in the circumstances of the case, given that the rights of the parties had not been previously adjudicated. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals only partly. The Court held that while the interim injunctions could be maintained, they must be made subject to the condition that the respondents furnish adequate security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court also declined to entertain contempt petitions at this stage, noting that such proceedings would be premature and potentially prejudicial to the merits of the ongoing litigation, with liberty granted to the parties to pursue such remedies upon the conclusion of the main suit if a case is established.
- Can an interim injunction be granted subject to the condition of furnishing security for mesne profits?
- Is it appropriate to initiate contempt of court proceedings while the main litigation regarding property ownership is still pending?
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM J. ---This order will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.127 and 128 of 1989 as well as Cr. M.P. No,45-R of 1989 and Cr.M.P. No, 45-R of 1990 as these are connected matters.
1. Relevant facts for the disposal of these matters are that the plaintiffs-respondents in the two appeals filed suits for declaration that they were owners of land in dispute. They applied for temporary injunction. The applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide two separate orders dated 7-5-1988. They filed appeals which were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Vehari by a consolidated order dated 4-6-1986. They filed revision petitions in the Lahore High Court which were allowed and interim injunction was granted. This is vide order dated 28-9-1988.
Hence the appeals and the petitions.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondents were not entitled to interim injunction in the circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the rights of the said respondents were not previously adjudicated upon by this Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we will allow these appeals only partly, as earlier the rights of the parties inter se were not adjudged but subject the interim injunction on furnishing of adequate security A for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Petitions for contempt proceedings are disposed of with the observation that this is not a fit stage as this may prejudice the case of either party. However on the conclusion of the present litigation if a case is made out the party concerned may make another application.
5. The titled matters are thus disposed of.