| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1913 2026 SLD 1913 = 2026 CLC 168 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 42046 of 2025, decided on 8th July, 2025.
Presented By: Before Malik Waqar Haider Awan, J
Ibrahim Haroon for Petitioner.
Writ Petition No. 42046 of 2025, decided on 8th July, 2025.
Presented By: Before Malik Waqar Haider Awan, J
Ibrahim Haroon for Petitioner.
ARSHAD IQBAL RANA ---Petitioner
VERSUS
SALMAN SAJJAD and others ---Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199,199(1)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: XXXIX,1,2
(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 await 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 be defeated in the garb of so-called easement 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…