Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Director General VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 8 others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Syed Usman Ali Shah Title:MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Director General vs
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 8 others Case No.:Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 110-R to 115-R and 117-R to 119-R of 1988 Date of Judgment:1989-06-26 Reported As: PLD 1989 Supreme Court 629 Result: Petitions dismissed Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these nine petitions; against the acceptance by the High Court of respondents' Civil Revisions which had arisen in relation to interim relief sought by the respondents/plaintiffs in their suits which are stated to be still pending. The learned Judge in the High Court in a joint but very detailed order dealt with the question of temporary injunction, sought by the respondents side, in an adequate manner. The mere fact that this Court might after full hearing be- of different opinion on one or the other questions amongst many dealt with by the High Court, would by itself not justify to interfere with the orders passed by the High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction. This Court seldom interferes with such like orders determining the interim relief. It has also to be kept in view that unless a grave illegality, a clear abuse of process or a gross injustice, is easily discoverable, this Court would not interfere with the orders of the High Court which determine the question and/or extent of interim relief in a case. In the' present matter there is an additional factor also; namely, that the learned Judge in the High Court took meticulous care to safeguard the interest of the petitioner authority, by making the following observation:- "I have noticed that the suits are pending since 1984 and the matter is still at the stage of the decision of question of issuance of temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated at the Bar that they were not interested to prolong the matter and undertook to conclude their evidence within three months. The trial court is hereby directed to expedite the proceedings in the
---
## Page 2
suits and dispose them of within six months from the date of receipt. Of this judgment and report compliance of this direction to this Court." We have been informed that the cases are still pending. Although no complaint has been made against the learned trial Court yet we feel that the petitioner should bring to the notice of the learned trial Judge the need for 'very early disposal of the case, in accordance with directions of the High Court. A copy of the application so made shall also be sent to the learned Judge who rendered the impugned judgment for whatever action/order, necessary in the 'supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. ' With the foregoing observations, these petitions are dismissed.