AKBAR and 2 others vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and 3 others
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision petition and upheld the vacation of a temporary injunction by the lower appellate court. The trial court had initially granted a temporary injunction to the petitioners under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. However, the lower appellate court reversed this grant of interim relief on the ground that the petitioners had suppressed material facts, specifically failing to disclose the dismissal of an earlier suit they had filed regarding the same subject-matter and seeking the same relief. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed that the non-disclosure of the previous litigation was a critical omission. The Court held that a party seeking discretionary interim relief must come to the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts. Consequently, the High Court's refusal to interfere with the appellate court's order was upheld, and the petition was dismissed.
- Whether a plaintiff who suppresses the fact of a previously dismissed suit on the same subject-matter is entitled to the discretionary relief of a temporary injunction?
- Can an appellate court reverse a trial court's grant of interim injunction on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts by the plaintiff?
- Does the failure to disclose prior litigation in an application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 justify the vacation of a temporary injunction?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Challenge in this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been made to the judgment, dated 16-11-1999 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan whereby the above Civil Revision was dismissed observing that the order impugned therein i.e. Order, dated 21-3-1997 of the lower Appellate Court reversing the grant of interim relief by the trial Court on 2-12-1996, was in order. The result was that the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court was vacated.
2. It appears that the grounds for vacating the temporary injunction in the litigation pending before the trial Court between the parties in relation to the suit-land measuring 101 Kanals, 19 Marlas situated in. Chak No.214-RB, Tehsil and District Vehari had preceded by the dismissal of an earlier suit of the petitioners up to the Appellate Court, which facts were not disclosed by the plaintiffs/ petitioners in their present suit. In the High Court, it was 'confirmed' by their learned counsel ".... that neither the suit was disclosed in the plaint filed before the trial Court (nor) in the application seeking interim injunction." (Underlining is for emphasis). The learned Judge in Chambers dismissed the revision petition with the direction to the trial Court to decide the suit within three months.
3. Hence this petition.
4. During the course of hearing of this petition, .Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support thereof was at his lowest in submitting that the grant of temporary injunction to the petitioners in their suit/application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and section 151, C.P.C. On 2-12-1996 should not have been reversed by the lower Appellate Court and that the failure on the part of the High Court direct resurrection thereof, cannot be maintained. However, he could not even so much as controvert the obvious position that non- disclosure of the attending facts and circumstances in relation to the petitioners' earlier suit, dated 24-7-1996 relating to the same subject-matter as also claiming the very relief which has been prayed for in the present suit, was duly noticed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned Judge in Chambers has not been shown to be in error in any manner whatsoever in refusing to reverse the judgment/ order of the lower Appellate Court, dated 21-3-1997 in the Civil Revision before him.
5. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.