M/s. EFFFF Industries Pvt. (Ltd.) vs The District Collector D.R.O. Khanewal and
This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which granted interim relief to the petitioner subject to furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the disputed amount. The core legal question concerns the circumstances under which the Supreme Court will interfere with discretionary interim orders passed by the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that the Court normally does not interfere with interim orders unless they suffer from a jurisdictional defect, are illegal, or would perpetuate an illegal gain, none of which were found in the impugned order given the conduct of the petitioner and the history of litigation. The key principle laid down is that the apex court exercises restraint against interfering with interlocutory orders of the High Court unless exceptional illegality or jurisdictional error is established.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court in the normal course?
- What grounds justify Supreme Court interference against an interim order of the High Court?
ORDER
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.6.2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby interim relief has been granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing Bank guarantee equivalent to the disputed amount.
2. This Court normally does not interfere in such like orders, unless it is found that the same suffer from jurisdictional defect or are illegal to the extent that noninterference would perpetuate an illegal gain.
3. We are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already filed a civil- suit before the Civil Court mention of which has been made in para 2 of the writ petition. Mr. Hassan Baqir, who has appeared today on behalf of respondent has also brought to our notice that other proceedings were also brought before the High Court about the same matter in which the petitioner was directed to purchase the Soya Been and return the money to Government in 1996 against which the petitioner filed petition before this Court but he failed, but despite that money has not been returned to the Government. The order Impugned in this petition" does not suffer from any illegality and even otherwise we are not inclined to interfere with the same, which is just and proper.
4. In. View of the circumstances of the case and the above-mentioned facts brought to our notice which may also be considered by High Court, we find no force in this petition, which is hereby dismissed and leave refused., .