MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs ABDUL QUDDUS and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed an appeal against a trial court's refusal to recall an order. The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and sought a temporary injunction. The application for the injunction was withdrawn by the son of the petitioner's counsel, who was also a junior in the same office. The petitioner subsequently sought to recall the withdrawal order, claiming the junior counsel lacked authorization. The trial court and the High Court both rejected this contention, holding that the junior counsel was authorized to make the statement on behalf of the senior counsel. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim orders of the courts below, noting that the doctrine of lis pendens would protect the petitioner's interests regarding the property during the suit's pendency. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the interim orders did not warrant discretionary intervention under the Constitution.
- Can a junior counsel appearing for a senior counsel be deemed authorized to withdraw an application on behalf of the client?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with interim orders of lower courts under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is the doctrine of lis pendens a sufficient safeguard for property rights during the pendency of a suit for specific performance?
- Article 185, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition is directed Against the judgment dated 6-8-2001 of the Lahore Court through which appeal filed by the petitioner against an interim order passed by the trial Court in the suit filed by him for specific performance of agreement of sale has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale alongwith which an application was also made for issuance of temporary injunction. The said application was withdrawn by Mr. Imran Saeed Bhatti, Advocate who is son of the learned counsel who was engaged in the case by the petitioner as such the said application was dismissed as withdrawn.
3. The petitioner made an application that the said order should be recalled for the son of the learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared and made the said statement for withdrawal of the same was not engaged by the petitioner as his counsel. This application was dismissed through order dated 7-7-2001 by the trial Court against which appeal filed by him has also been dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 6-8-2001 against which leave is sought.
4. It has been held by the learned Judge of the High Court that the son of the learned counsel of the petitioner who was also admittedly working as his junior must be deemed to have been authorized by the learned counsel of the petitioner to make statement, therefore, the said statement was not to be treated as unauthorized. In our view, if during the pendency of the suit, the respondents are dealing with the property, the same may ultimately be defended on the ground of rule of lis pendens.
5. We are not inclined to interfere in the interim orders passed by the Courts below in our discretion under Article 185 of the Constitution, therefore, this petition is hereby dismissed and leave refused.