Dr. MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs SIKANDAR And 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a pending writ petition. The High Court had appointed the Tehsildar, Arifwala, as a receiver to manage, harvest, and preserve standing sugarcane and wheat crops, with directions to maintain accounts for the benefit of the successful party. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the impugned order and observed that it was not a final order and had been passed subject to notice to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court noted that the miscellaneous application underlying the impugned order had not yet been formally heard by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner should first approach the High Court to raise all objections regarding the receiver's appointment and the management of the crops. The petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner must pursue his remedies before the High Court, as the matter was still pending adjudication there.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained against an interim order passed in a pending writ petition?
- Is it appropriate for a party to approach the Supreme Court when objections to an interim order have not yet been raised before the High Court?
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioner has filed this petition to seek leave to appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of High Court dated 6-4-1995 passed on a miscellaneous petition moved in a pending writ petition whereby Tehsildar, Arifwala has been appointed as a receiver for harvesting, realization, management, protection and preservation of the standing. Crops of sugarcane and wheat with further direction that the receiver shall have the crops harvested at the appropriate the for the benefit of the party, who ultimately succeeds in the litigation. Receiver has also been directed to keep full account of income and expenditure.
2. We find that the order impugned is not final. It was passed subject to notice to the petitioner. On our query, the learned counsel has stated that the Miscellaneous application on which the aforesaid order has been passed has not come up for hearing. So far. Petitioner should better approach the High Court and canvass before it all his objections to the impugned order which he seeks to raise before us. With this observation, this petition is dismissed.