Ms. ZEESHAN ZIA RAJA vs Dr — 2023 YLR 2104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Ms. ZEESHAN ZIA RAJA VS Dr. NADEEM KIANI O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2(3) & S. 151---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 56---Contempt of Court--- Constitutional petition--- Suit for declaration---Respondent/District Registering Authority passed order for cancellation of 22 schools of the plaintiff---Civil Court suspended said order and restrained the Registering Authority from cancelling registration of the same---Plaintiff also filed separate appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, wherein petitioner's counsel raised objection as to maintainability of the said appeal---Commissioner sine die adjourned said appeal till decision of aforesaid suit, however, on application of the petitioner, he proceeded with the appeal---Civil Court issued ad-interim injunction---Respondent moved contempt application against petitioner and respondents who had cancelled the said registration and restrained from using the brand name of the schools---Petitioner moved application under S.151, C.P.C., for summary dismissal of the contempt petition being non-maintainable---Trial Court suspended said two orders and held the contempt petition to be maintainable---Petitioner's appeal was also dismissed---Validity---Petitioner's application under S. 151, C.P.C., was not moved in the main suit rather the same was filed in contempt proceedings---Under the provisions of R. 2(3) of O. XXXIX of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Court was not competent to restore the status quo ante---Court had got inherent jurisdiction to bring back the party to a position where it originally stood as if the order had not been contravened, however, such an order could only be passed in suit and not in proceedings---Equity could not be given precedence/over-riding effect over the clear mandate of law---Courts were supposed to confine themselves within the contours drawn by the law and they could not be permitted to travel beyond the permissible scope of a provision/ statute---Interim order was in field when another order was passed---Restraining order would continue provided no lapse was attributable to the conduct of plaintiff, despite the fact that no specific order was passed extending the order granting status quo---Argument as to grant of final relief in the garb of interim injunction could be raised before the court concerned, which could suspend the order if concluded that order was prima facie illegal/without lawful authority---Constitutional petition was allowed; impugned order/judgment were set-aside being illegal/without lawful authority; Trial Court was declared to be at liberty to pass order in application under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 if it would hold the field.

Ms. ZEESHAN ZIA RAJA vs Dr — 2023 YLR 2104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR