2006 PLP 916 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HANIF — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 916 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 916 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 916 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 916 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HANIF — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th May, 2003.
- Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 13-7-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, passed in Civil Revision No.345 of 2000).
O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2
Lease rights in suit-land obtained through auction were not confirmed in favour of plaintiff by competent authority
Provincial Board of Revenue declared auction proceedings to be fraudulent and bogus
Held: Plaintiff in such situation could not be said to have established existence of prima facie case in his favour. Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
An application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction, in the suit of permanent injunction, before the trial Court was dismissed by holding that he had failed to establish the existence of prima facie case in his favour, balance was convenience and irreparable loss. Appeal filed by the petitioner as dismissed by the first Appellate Court against the which revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed through dated 13-7-2000 against which leave is sought.
2. The case of the petitioner was that the land in dispute was allotted to him under Five Years Cultivation Scheme in open auction and was in his possession thereunder and he had spent a huge amount on raising construction over it, which was cancelled by the Board of Revenue through order, dated 24-4-1999, therefore, temporary injunction should be issued to protect his possession till the disposal of the suit.
3. We find that though the lessee rights. in the land for 5 years were auctioned but it was not confirmed in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority i.e. Collector and the Board of Revenue declared the auction proceedings as fraudulent and bogus. The view taken by the Courts below that in such situation the petitioner could not be held to have established existence of prima facie case in his favour is legally correct for the auction had not been confirmed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that the orders of the Courts below of disposal of application of temporary injunction suffer from any illegality. For the foregoing reason, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. S.A.K./M-911/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.