Pakistan Case Law← Search
1972 SCMR 417

PERVEZ WAHEED vs PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH COLLECTOR, DISTRICT

Citation1972 SCMR 417
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No: 203 of 1972 Civil Revision No.
Date1972-10-31
Judge(s)Hamoodur Rahman, Sheikh Anwarul Haq
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This, petition for special leave -to appeal has arisen out of an order made in Civil Revision No. 935 of 1971 by a learned Single Judge 'in the Lahore High Court, whereby he partly modified an order of the lower Court granting an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner in a civil suit instituted by him' in the Court of the Additional Administrative Civil Judge, Multan. The petitioner had sought to challenge the legality of the recovery proceedings started by the Revenue authorities in respect of a Takavi loan of Rs. 5,009 obtained by him from the Collector of the District for the purpose of sinking a well on his land. The learned Single Judge maintained the injunc-- petition granted by the trial Court 'but imposed two conditions regarding the early disposal of the suit and the furnishing of security by the petitioner for the payment of the disputed amount in a lump sum in the event of dismissal of his suit.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that while acting fin revision the High Court bad no power to vary the terms of the injunction granted by the trial Court in the exercise of the discretion vesting in it under the law.

3. We see no substance in this contention, as the revisional Court acting under section 115 of the C. P.

4. G. Has full powers to correct any errors committed by the Courts below and to ensure that the discretion is exercised in accordance with sound judicial principles. The demand for a security, as a condition' precedent, for the grant of injunction and direction for the early disposal of the suit cannot be regarded as unreasonable conditions.

5. For she foregoing reasons no justification is made our for our interference. The petition, therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search