BALQUEES ABBAS vs JUDGE BANKING COURT And 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against two interlocutory orders passed by the Lahore High Court in a pending writ petition. The petitioner, an auction purchaser, sought relief regarding the Executing Court's refusal to deliver possession of an auctioned property, despite the sale being confirmed and a certificate issued. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should entertain a petition against interim High Court orders, particularly when the petitioner had alternative remedies available to address the Executing Court's inaction. The Supreme Court held that the petition was misconceived and not maintainable. The Court reasoned that since no stay order existed against the auction or the delivery of possession, the petitioner’s proper course of action was to approach the High Court for clarification or appropriate directions, rather than invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction against interlocutory orders. The key principle laid down is that where an aggrieved party has an effective and available remedy before the High Court to address procedural grievances or non-compliance with orders, a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court against interim orders is premature and not maintainable.
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an interlocutory order of the High Court when alternative remedies are available?
- Can an auction purchaser seek relief from the Supreme Court for non-delivery of possession when no stay order exists in the pending High Court proceedings?
- What is the appropriate legal recourse for an auction purchaser when an Executing Court refuses to deliver possession despite a confirmed sale?
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- This petition is directed against the orders dated 29.9.2000 and 17.10.2000 passed by the Lahore High Court in W.P. No. 2126 of 2000.
2. Through order dated 17.10.2000, the High Court has merely issued notice to the writ petitioner on the application of respondent No. 3 bank seeking dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable.
We are afraid, if petition for leave to appeal is maintainable against such an order or even if the same is maintainable, discretion should be exercised in this case in favour of the petitioner to entertain this petition for grant of leave.
3. Through order dated 29.9.2000, the High Court directed the respondent judgment debtor to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- within to weeks from the said date failing which this petition would stand dismissed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent had not complied with the said order as he had deposited only an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-, as such, the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
4. The petitioner is an auction purchaser in whose favour, according to the learned counsel, auction of the property has been confirmed and sale certificate issued but the Executing Court has refused to deliver possession of the property merely on the ground that the said writ petition was pending before the High Court.
5. If the petitioner feels aggrieved against the orders or act of the Executing Court of not delivering possession of the property to her inspite of the fact that there was no stay order passed by the High Court in any of the proceedings against the auction or the decree regarding delivery of possession or otherwise, she should seek remedy against the same before the High Court either by filing separate writ petition or by making application for clarification order direction in the same writ petition, to the Banking Court/Executing Court to deliver possession. This petition against the order dated 29.9.2000, therefore, is also misconceived and not maintainable.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave- refused subject to the above observations.