Mst. Rashidan Bibi And Other vs Mst. Ramzan Bibi And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the restoration of possession of a house to the respondents following the petitioners' violation of an injunctive order. The respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction, during which a status quo order regarding possession was issued. Despite this, the petitioners dispossessed the respondents. The Trial Court subsequently ordered the restoration of possession and imposed a sentence of imprisonment on the petitioners for violating the injunction. While the Additional District Judge maintained this order on appeal, the Lahore High Court, with the consent of the parties, set aside the imprisonment sentence but upheld the restoration of possession. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, holding that the petitioners could not approbate and reprobate a consent order. Furthermore, the Court determined that no question of law of public importance existed to merit interference, particularly as the main suit remained pending adjudication. The petition was consequently dismissed.
- Can a party challenge an order that they previously consented to in a High Court revision?
- Does the violation of an injunctive order justify the restoration of possession to the aggrieved party?
- Is a question of law of public importance required for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal in a civil matter?
FALAK SHER, J.- The respondents having acquired possession of the spelt out house from the petitioners through Bailiff on 4.7.1985, pursuant to an ejectment order dated 11.3.1984, alleging threatened dispossession there from at the instance of the petitioners preferred a suit for permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge, Kasur on 22.5.1984, wherein status quo qua the possession was ordered to be maintained as an interim measure. Despite of which the petitioners dis-possessed the respondents concerning which, in addition to lodging a report with the local police, an application was moved before the Trial Court praying for punitive action for the alleged violation of the injunctive order and restoration of the possession.
2. Which was allowed by the Senior Civil. Judge, Kasur on 12.3.1990 awarding one month's simple imprisonment to the petitioners restoration of the possession into the respondent's was ordered which on appeal was maintained by an Additional District Judge, Kasur on 14.12.1995.
3. However; partly granting the petitioners' Revision (C.R. Ng. 96/1996) a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court with the consent of the parties, setting-aside the awarded sentence of the imprisonment maintained the restored possession vide the impugned order dated 22.4.2003.
4. Against which leave to appeal is being sought contending that restoration of the possession could not be granted for the alleged violation of the injunctive order.
5. Wherein, we are not impressed to interfere because independent of the fact that the petitioners cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate the interim consented order, the main suit still awaiting adjudication, no question of law of public importance meriting interference has been spelt out. Resultantly, the same fail and is hereby dismissed leave declined.