1992 PLP 1288 (CLC)
NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHIM‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1288 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kiani, J |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHIM‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1288 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1288 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1288 (CLC) (NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHIM‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian.Muhammd Ibrahim for Petitioner.
- Abdul Sadiq for Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr. 1, 2, 4 & S.115‑‑‑Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 52 & 54‑‑‑Grant of status quo‑‑‑Vacation of ‑‑‑Lis pendens‑‑ Plaintiff/petitioner in his suit for cancellation of sale‑deed in respect of property in dispute on grounds of fraud, forgery and impersonation, got status quo regarding construction on property in dispute and its further alienation pendente lite from Trial Court by filing application under OXXXIX, Rr 1 and 2 C.P.C. but. same was vacated by Appellate Court‑‑‑Both plaintiff and' defendant, were sons of deceased who had sold property in dispute through a registered sale deed executed only one day prior to his death in favour of defendant/respondent‑‑‑Except for plaintiff/petitioner and defendant/respondent other heirs of deceased who were widow and other four sons and six daughters of deceased, were not joined to litigation‑‑‑‑Plaintiff, in circumstances, could claim relief equivalent to his own share in property covered by sale‑deed‑‑‑Admittedly no construction as yet was made on property in dispute, but it was submitted that same was in use of defendant/respondent as a passage‑‑‑In view of serious dispute about validity of sale‑deed by which property in question was purportedly transferred by late father to one of his sons near or about time of his death, it' would be appropriate to keep it in its present state and defendant/respondent should be bound not to alter or change its character and alienate it further‑‑‑Subject‑matter of lis thus was amply protected from interference by rule of lis pendens‑‑‑High Court allowing revision, set aside order of Appellate Court below and restored the status quo order granted by Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
Mian.Muhammd Ibrahim for Petitioner. Abdul Sadiq for Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th November, 1991. Civil Revision by the plaintiff in the suit for cancellation of registered sale‑deed is against a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Lahore, whereby, in appeal preferred by the respondent, injunction order issued by the learned trial Court was vacated. Property No. 62/117, situate at Ahmad Block, New Garden Town. Lahore belonged to Haji Ahmad Din. Out of it, 2 Marlas 30 Sq.Ft, were sold by him to his son Abdur Rahim through a sale‑deed executed on 6‑2‑1984 and registered on 8‑2‑1984. Haji Ahmad Din was an old man of about eighty years. He breathed his last on 7‑2‑1984. He was survived by a widow, six sons and six daughters. Petitioner as well as respondent were sons of Haji Ahmad Din. ' Petitioner instituted a Civil suit for cancellation of sale‑deed on the grounds of fraud, forgery, and impersonation. Alongwith the plaint, he submitted an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code for maintaining status quo regarding construction on the property in dispute and its further alienation pendente lite. The trial Court gave the desired interim relief but lower appellate' Court held differently and vacated the injunction order. Except for the petitioner and respondent other heirs were not joined to the litigation. Petitioner could claim relief equivalent to his own share in the property covered by the sale‑deed. It was not denied that there was no construction as yet made on the property in dispute. It was submitted that it was in use of the respondent as a passage. Since there was a serious dispute about the validity of the sale‑deed by which the property in question was purportedly transferred by the late father to one of his sons near or about the time of his decease, it shall be appropriate to keep it in its present state and the respondent should be bound not to alter or change its character and alienate it further. This shall be in the fitness of things and also in the interest of both the parties. Even otherwise, subject‑matter of lis is amply protected from interference by rule of lis pendens. In this view of the matter, Civil Revision is allowed, impugned order of the learned lower appellate Court is set aside and that of learned trial Court restored. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court. Trial shall be expedited. H.B.T./N‑23/L Revision allowed.