ARSHAD IQBAL RANA vs SALMAN SAJJAD art — 2026 CLC 168 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.

ARSHAD IQBAL RANA VS SALMAN SAJJAD 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 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 by courts below was not 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 did not call for any interference by the High Court---Constitutional petition was not maintainable and same was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

ARSHAD IQBAL RANA vs SALMAN SAJJAD art — 2026 CLC 168 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC