Constitutional Petition Against Refusal of Ad-Interim Injunction Declared Not Maintainable.
 |
| Writ against stay order |
ad-interim injunction
کے انکار کے خلاف آئینی درخواست — دائرہ اختیار اور قابلِ سماعتی
پس منظر
بنیادی قانونی سوال
آئینی دائرہ اختیار کی نوعیت
مؤثر متبادل علاج
عبوری احکامات اور ان کی حیثیت
حقِ ارتفاق بمقابلہ حقِ ملکیت
عملی مضمرات
نتیجہ
Must read judgement.
2026 C LC 168
[Lahore]
Before Malik Waqar Haider Awan, J
ARSHAD IQBAL RANA-Petitioner
Versus
SALMAN SAJJAD and others-Respondents
12
Writ Petition No. 42046 of 2025, decided on 8th July, 2025.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan---
-Art.199-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Constitutional petition-Maintainability-Courts below refusing ad-interim injunction/interlocutory order, challenge to Application for temporary injunction still pending before Trial Court-Effect-Interlocutory orders which are not final or conclusive in nature cannot be challenged by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction---Adequate remedy in such circumstances Proper course is to awajt Trial Court's decision Rationale All interim orders remain open. to scrutiny in appeal Facts of the present matter were that the petitioner bought a top-floor flat with a rooftop where he installed a water tank and solar panels---The dispute arose when the building owner planned further construction over the rooftop, which the petitioner claimed would infringe his easement rights and bar his access to his utilities installed at the rooftop-In the civil suit filed by the petitioner, request for grant of ad-interim injunction was declined by trial court as well as the appellate court-High Court was called upon to challenge the refusals of grant of ad interim injunction by courts below, where at the outset the petitioner was confronted as to the question of maintainability of the Constitutional petition being against the interlocutory order---Therefore, pivotal question for determination before the High Court was as to "whether a Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution was maintainable against interlocutory orders refusing an ad-interim injunction?" Held: Relief sought for through application for interim injunction had no nexus with easement rights rather it amounted to trespassing the property of the adversary---When easement rights were kept in juxtaposition with ownership rights, indubitably ownership rights prevailed and could not he defeated in the garb of so-called easement rig rights An ad interim order granted by a court held the field till the next date of hearing and a litigant was supposed to get decided his application for grant of temporary injunction filed under O.XXXIX Rr. 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The grant of ad-interim injunction by the High Court would have amounted to stepping into the shoes of Trial Court which was not mandated by law-Invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court by challenging grant or refusal of ad-interim injunction courts below low was not an an adequate remedy as application for grant of temporary injunction was yet to be decided-If litigants were allowed to question grant or refusal of ad interim injunction through constitutional petitions, it would open floodgates Constitutional jurisdiction being an extraordinary jurisdiction could not be invoked to challenge interlocutory orders that were not final or conclusive in nature-The impugned orders were unexceptionable and and did not call for any interference by the High Court-by cou Constitutional petition was not maintainable and same was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan---
-Art.199-Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of Courts below refusing ad-interim injunction/interlocutory order, challenge to-Scope---Every interim order need not to be challenged at that stage because when a suit is finally decided by the Trial Court, all the interim orders become open in appeal.
Rashid Baig and others v. Muhammad Mansha and others 2024 SCMR 1385 rel.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan-
Art.199(1)---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of Sine qua non-Satisfaction of the High Court that no other adequate remedy is provided by law---Scope-Expressions adequate" and "satisfaction"---Connotations-The expressions "adequate" and "satisfaction used in clause (1) of Art. 199 of the Constitution are significant-Meaning of "adequate" is not provided in the Constitution, hence ordinary dictionary meaning is to be adopted as provided in Black's Law Dictionary (12th Edition) which is as follows:-Adequate: (i) Fully satisfying requirements: sufficient, suitable, and acceptable in both quality and quantity: (ii) Legally as matter law: a matter law: satisfactory, barely reaching acceptable standard; just enough--With regard to the expression "satisfaction", for maintainability of a Constitutional petition, satisfaction of the High Court is sine qua non to the effect that no other adequate remedy is available to the litigant under the law.
(d) Constitution of Pakistan...
-Art.199-Constitutional jurisdiction the Constitutional jurisdiction of the is supervisory and extraordinary which can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances such as violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction hy lower court, gross miscarriage of justice and if the orders passed by lower courts are in violation of natural justice.
(e) Constitution of Pakistan-
Art.199 Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court Cases involving factual controversies Scope Matters pertaining to factual controversy requires recording of evidence which the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot undertake.
Special Secretary-ll (Law and Order), Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others v. Fayyaz Dawar 2023 SCMR 1442; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others v. Intizar and 2022 SCMR 472; Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Department, Lahore through Chief Engineer (North Central) Punjab Highway Department, Lahore v. Yasir Majeed Sheikh and others 2021 SCMR 624 and Messrs Fateh Yarn (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad v. Commissioner Inland Revenue Faisalabad and others 2021 SCMR 1133 rel
(f) Jurisdiction
---Every court prior to taking cognizance of and adjudicating upon an issue should first resort to the question of assumption of jurisdiction of the Court If it comes to the conclusion that jurisdiction can be assumed only then it can adjudicate upon the issue. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Muhammad Anwar Mandokhel 2024 SCMR 298 rel.