Ms Al-Kabir Town Ptv Ltd. through Ammad Naseer Chaudhary Vs Muhammad Azam etc

FORM No. HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No. 42647 of 2026 Al Kabir Town (Pvt) Ltd. Muhammad Azam, etc. Vs.

Sr. No. of Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of order/ Proceeding Parties” counsel, where necessary Proceedings 13.07.2026 Mr. Shakoh Zulqurnain, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Additional Advocate General Punjab, Syed Ali Allow-u-Din, Ch. Imtiaz Ullah Warraich, Barrister Shahid Masood Khan, Syed Qaiser Gillani and Syed Imran Ehsan Advocates.

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 20.05.2026 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, whereby he entertained the Appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1 and converted the same into revision petition filed against an ad-interim injunctive order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned trial court, whereby said court had suspended operation of decree dated 07.06.2026 on an application filed by the petitioner and suspended the operation of said injunctive order.

2.It is claimed by the petitioner that the said appeal was time barred and was converted into revision petition and application for condoning delay in filing the revision was also allowed despite the fact that Revision petition cannot be entertained against an interlocutory order granting ad-interim injunction, especially when the application upon which order of interim relief was passed is still pending adjudication with the learned trial court and at the most a direction could have been issued to the trial court for early decision of the said application on merit without

interfering with the order impugned therein, hence, it is claimed that the impugned order having been passed without jurisdiction is liable to be set-aside. It is further pointed out that in a similar matter i.e. W.P.No. 42324/26 titled “Khurram Munaaf etc. V/s. Muhammad Azam, etc.” filed by respondents No.14 to 16, etc., a similar order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, arising out of a connected matter has been suspended.

3.The brief background of the case is that the present petitioner filed an application under Section 12(2) CPC to call in question judgment and decree for Declaration through Specific Performance of agreement to sell and Cancellation of document, etc. passed on 07.06.2006 in a suit titled “Hassan Din, etc. versus Muhammad Alam etc.” by learned Civil Judge, Lahore and during proceedings of the said application, on an application for seeking interim relief filed against the said decree the learned trial court suspended the operation of the said decree vide its order dated

4.The respondent No.1 instead of contesting the said application for interim relief filed an appeal against the aforesaid injunctive order, which was converted by the appellate court into a revision petition and on an application for interim relief, the aforesaid order whereby ad-interim injunction had been granted by the trial court in favour of the petitioner was suspended through ad- interim order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 20.05.2026. The said order passed by the Revisional Court is under challenge in this constitutional petition.

5.In this petition, the claim of the present petitioner is that the learned Addl. District Judge entertained the Revision against an ad-interim order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the trial court, whereas application for interim relief was still pending with the trial court and in view thereof the said order is not a final decision passed on the said application which could be treated as a “case decided” in terms of Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, revision petition was premature and was liable to be dismissed hence, prays that the order dated 20.05.2026 be set-aside. For determining the said controversy in issue the operative part of order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the trial court is reproduced below:- “5. In the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and documents attached with the plaint, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.06.2006 is hereby suspended, till next date of hearing.

6.This order shall not affect/prejudice any proceedings of any court/authority. This order shall cease to have any effect after date fixed, if not extended specifically. It is clarified here that if at any subsequent stage it comes on record that ad-interim injunction has been obtained by concealment of facts the order shall be recalled without prior notice.”

6.The perusal of the aforementioned order shows that the trial court ordered that operation of judgment and decree dated 07.06.2006 was suspended till the next date of hearing with the observation that the said order shall cease to have its effect if not extended on the next date of hearing. The said order was purely an ad-interim interlocutory order as the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner was still pending for

adjudication with the trial court, however, revision against the same was entertained by the Revisional Court, which had passed the impugned order dated 20.05.2026 on an application for interim relief filed with the said revision petition, which also is an interlocutory order; the operative part of the said order is reproduced below:- “5. Points raised by learned counsel for the revision petitioner need consideration. Hence, revision petition is admitted for regular hearing. Let notices be issued to the respondent subject to deposit of process fee alongwith registered post A.D for 04.06.2026. The process fee be deposited within three days.

6.Along with the revision petition, an application u/s 151 CPC for suspension of operation of the impugned order has been filed by the revision petitioner which is supported by an affidavit. In these circumstances, while relying upon the affidavit, the operation of impugned order dated 15.12.2025 is hereby suspended till next date so fixed. In case of concealment of facts, the order for grant of ad-interim injunction shall be recalled.”

7.The aforesaid order granting ad-interim injunction passed by the Revisional Court is under challenge before this Court on the ground that said order could not have been passed as revision petition was not maintainable against an ad-interim injunctive order passed by the trial court, which was a discretionary order and finality was not attached to it to make it challengeable before any higher forum.

8.The question regarding maintainability of revision petition against an interlocutory order came up for consideration before this court in the case titled Mst. Naseem Mai (deceased) through L.Rs. versus Muhammad Saleem Anjum (PLJ 2026

Lahore 165), wherein while declaring the Civil Revision filed against an interlocutory order, to which finality was not attached to bring it in the ambit of the expression “a case decided” as envisaged in Section 115 of CPC, as not maintainable, it was observed as under:

6.The impugned order, as also evident from subsequent order dated 11.12.2025, is an interlocutory procedural order which is purely discretionary in nature and finality is not attached to the same, to bring the same in the ambit of the expression “a case decided” as envisaged in Section 115 of CPC, which is a mandatory requirement for exercising jurisdiction of revision against a judicial order, therefore, Civil Revision against the said order is premature and not maintainable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments titled as Mian Muhammad Luqman and 5 others vs. Farida Khanum and another (1994 SCMR 1991), wherein it has been held as under: “It is not denied by the respondents” learned counsel that unless it is “a case decided” the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. to deal with the matter on civil revisional side. On the specific point; whether the order passed in this case by the trial court which was impugned before the High Court did constitute a “case decided” the learned counsel although having remained for considerable time hesitant to admit that it did not constitute “a case decided” ultimately failed to satisfy the Court that it did constitute “a case decided.”

7.The same principle has been enunciated in the judgments titled as Nestle Milkpak Limited vs. Classic Needs Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others (2006 SCMR 21) and Abdul Razzaq and others vs. Muhammad Ajmal Khan (PLD 2018 Lahore 491).”

9.The perusal of the principles discussed in the aforementioned judgment with reference to

previous judgments mentioned therein makes it clear that for a revision petition to be maintainable, the order impugned therein should be of such nature that finality is attached to the same and it amounts to be “a case decided” as mentioned in Section 115 CPC, otherwise revision petition would not be maintainable.

10.Although the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of aforementioned observations wants this court to declare that the revision petition pending before the Revisional Court was not maintainable, yet the question arises that whether this court should declare a revision petition pending before the Revisional Court as not maintainable or the said question may in the first instance be decided by the Revisional Court itself.

11.It would be important to note here that it is of utmost importance that question of jurisdiction is raised in the first instance before the court or forum, jurisdiction of which is under challenge so that it may decide the said question before raising the said question before any higher forum. Moreover, it is mandatory for proper Administration of Justice that where an objection to jurisdiction of forum, authority or a court is raised, said forum, authority or court is under legal obligation to decide question of jurisdiction before embarking upon merits of the issue or matter requiring decision for the reason that unless jurisdiction is vested in it, its decision would be without any lawful authority and of not legal effect. Furthermore, where jurisdiction is not vested in it, the same cannot be assumed even by consent of parties, hence, it is mandatory for court,

forum or authority to first decide question of its own jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard is placed on principles of law laid down in judgments titled as Rasheed Ahmed versus Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (2020 MLD 108), Izhar Alam Farooqi, Advocate versus Sheikh Abdul Sattar Lasi and others (2008 SCMR 240) and D.G.Customs Valuation, Karachi and another versus Messrs Trade International Lahore and others (2014 SCMR 15). It is also pertinent to mention here that the Court jurisdiction of which is under challenge is not debarred from determining the question of its own jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on principles laid down in Government of the Punjab through Secretary (Services), SGA&I Department and 2 others versus Ms. Sarosh Sultan, Additional Secretary/Director, O&M S&GAD Department, Punjab and another (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 541), wherein it is provided as under:- “8. It also appears that orders of admission of writ petition passed by the High Court and order of stay granted with notice to the other side are orders of interim nature which are not final. Appellants before us (respondents in the writ petition) could raise any number of objections including challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court and after hearing both parties it is open to the Court to come to the conclusion if satisfied that it has no jurisdiction and in the result recall order of admission and stay or dismiss the writ petition. Seemingly High Court never got an opportunity to hear the other side or objections raised by them in the writ petition, hence could not pass final orders. It appears that the only ground which prompted appellants before us (respondents in the writ petition) to approach this Court against interim orders passed by the High Court was that High

Court was having vacation and application for recall of stay filed by them was returned by the office on the ground that it did not amount urgent work. Now since vacation is over this ground is no more available and in all fairness High Court should be allowed to dispose of application and the case according to law. There is no legal impediment in the way of High Court for deciding the question of its own jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition entertained by it. Case-law is cited in the order of admission of writ petition passed by the High Court and likewise case-law is cited in the order passed by this Court at the time of grant of leave. High Court is competent to decide the question of jurisdiction after hearing both parties.”

From the principles laid down in the judgments mentioned above, it may be concluded that before approaching any higher forum, the question relating to jurisdiction must in the first instance be raised by the aggrieved party before the forum, where the matter is pending and while hearing the same, the court, authority or forum is required to first decide the question of its own jurisdiction and then proceed further in the matter, which also includes that whether the petition is legally maintainable, competently filed, and whether the court has the lawful authority to hear and resolve the dispute raised before it.

12.Another important aspect of this matter is that this constitutional petition has also been filed against an interlocutory order, whereas the revision petition is still pending adjudication before the Revisional Court. On the one hand, the claim of the petitioner is that despite pendency of matter before the trial court, the Revisional Court has entertained the revision petition against an interlocutory order, which according to him was not permissible under

the law and on the other hand, petitioner also has approached this Court against interlocutory order passed by the Revisional Court, without decision of the revision petition or the application for interim relief pending before the said court. The Revisional Court is competent to decide the grievance of the petitioner in terms of the judgments referred to above and at this stage right to approach this Court against the impugned orders has not yet matured, hence, this petition is premature, therefore, instead of passing any final order by entertaining the instant constitutional petition against an interlocutory order passed in revision petition, it would be appropriate to direct the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, to first determine the question whether revision petition was maintainable against an ad-interim interlocutory injunctive order passed by the trial court, which exercise shall be carried out, expeditiously, preferably within 15-days from the next date of hearing fixed before it and thereafter, if the petition is found to be maintainable the court shall proceed to decide revision petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within 03- months from the date of passing of this order and till decision of the revision petition the present position pertaining with regard to the suit property shall be maintained. Order accordingly. With these observations, the instant petition stands disposed of.

(Muzamil Akhtar Shabir) Judge Zeeshan Khan*

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

Judge