AJMEER KHAN vs Haji WAHID HUSSAIN AND Other
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which refused to grant an interim injunction in a declaratory suit filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer of a shop to respondent No. 1, a claimant displaced person, on 23rd November 1959. The petitioner's earlier appeals, revisions, miscellaneous applications, writ petitions, and a prior petition for leave to appeal had all been dismissed, and a Permanent Transfer Deed was issued to the respondent on 20th March 1963. The core legal question concerns the propriety of refusing an interim injunction in a declaratory suit challenging a long-settled property transfer. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and the trial court were justified in refusing the interim injunction given the facts and circumstances of the case, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that appellate interference with the discretionary refusal of an interim injunction by lower courts will be withheld where the petitioner fails to establish a fit case.
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to grant an interim injunction in a declaratory suit challenging the transfer of a shop?
- Is it a fit case to interfere with the High Court's order refusing an interim injunction?
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner is a local while respondent No. 1 is a claimant displaced person. The dispute between the parties is over a shop which the petitioner claims had been in his possession. The shop, however, was transferred to the respondent on the 23rd of November, 1959.
2. The petitioner's appeal as well as his revision failed. Since then a Permanent Transfer Dead was issued to the respondent on the 20th of march, 1963.
3. The petitioner had also made a miscellaneous application in the year 1963 but it was dismissed.
4. From this order he filed a writ petition which, too, was dismissed. The petitioner', petition for leave to appeal from the order dismissing the writ petition was also refused in the year 1975.
5. The petitioner has now been aggrieved by an order of the High Court refusing to grant him interim injunction in a declaratory suit which he had Bled on the 31st of March, 1975, challenging the transfer of the shop in question.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we think the learned Single Judge of the High Court was right in refusing to grant an interim injunction. The trial Court had originally refused to Bran the interim injunction.
7. We do not think this is a fit case to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MIRO KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 1984 CLC 1567