AMIR KHAN vs FATEH KHAN ETC.S
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in a Regular Second Appeal. The dispute concerned the construction of a wall and the existence of a right of passage through the respondent's land. The petitioner sought to challenge the High Court's refusal to vacate a stay order, which had been confirmed based on evidence (Exh. 4) indicating the existence of a passage to the north of the plaintiff's lawn. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core question of whether an appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order of the High Court in such circumstances. The Court held that no appeal lies against an interlocutory order of this nature. Furthermore, the Court observed that the High Court had sufficient prima facie grounds to confirm the stay order based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that interlocutory orders are generally not subject to appeal before the Supreme Court in this context.
- Is an appeal maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an interlocutory order where the High Court has prima facie evidence supporting a stay order?
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHAMADJ.-This petition is directed against the Order of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 83 of 1973, dated 24-6-74. Order, which was confirmed after notice.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of a wall, which has been erected by the respondent.
3. It is alleged by the petitioner that there is no passage for the respondent to pass through his land.
4. The learned Civil Judge and the learned District Judge had decided in favour of the petitioner. The matter is now under consideration in Regular Second Appeal No. 83 of 1974. In Civil Miscellaneous No. 1924/C/73 a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has declined to vacate the stay order. In an earlier order dated 31-5-74 the High Court had observed that Exh. 4 proved that there is a passage to the north of the plaintiff's lawn, and confirmed the stay order on this ground. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said Order After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears to us the petition for special leave to appeal had been filed against an interlocutory order. No appeal lay against such an order. We do not, therefore, consider this as a fit case for appeal to this Court: Moreover, as .Has been pointed by the High Court, Exh. P shows that there is a passage to the north of the plaintiff's lawn. Prima facie therefore, there was good ground for the High Court to confirm the stay order. There is no force in this petition. The petition is dismissed.