1987 PLP 284 (MLD)
BAHAUD DIN — Applicant/Petitioner Versus SHAHID HUSSAIN MALI K — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 284 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J |
| Parties | BAHAUD DIN — Applicant/Petitioner Versus SHAHID HUSSAIN MALI K — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 284 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 284 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 284 (MLD) (BAHAUD DIN — Applicant/Petitioner Versus SHAHID HUSSAIN MALI K — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.54--Grant of injunction, application for--Petitioner claiming easement/ necessity rights of sewerage lines and other necessities enjoyed by him, sought injunction against respondent in respect of plot in dispute on which neither any construction was raised by respondent so far nor was intended by him to be raised--As injunction could be claimed by petitioner only when either his rights were actually adversely affected or were intended to be affected by respondent by raising some sort of construction, application of petitioner for seeking injunction against respondent, held, was premature in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID HUSSAIN MALI K--Respondent Revision Application No. 311 of 1986, decided on 26th October, 1986.
S.54--Grant of injunction, application for--Petitioner claiming easement/ necessity rights of sewerage lines and other necessities enjoyed by him, sought injunction against respondent in respect of plot in dispute on which neither any construction was raised by respondent so far nor was intended by him to be raised--As injunction could be claimed by petitioner only when either his rights were actually adversely affected or were intended to be affected by respondent by raising some sort of construction, application of petitioner for seeking injunction against respondent, held, was premature in circumstances. This revision is not competent as I do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the lower Court, who has refused tea issue injunction in favour of the applicant. The applicant had claimed easement/ necessity rights in respect of sewerage lines and other necessities enjoyed by the applicant in respect of the disputed plot. The injunction could have been claimed only when such rights were actually intended to be affected by the respondent by raising some sort of construction. But a construction has not been raised or intended to be raised so far by the respondent and, therefore, the injunction application in respect of the necessity rights was premature. The applicant should have waited till such time that his rights were actually adversely, affected or seriously intended to affected and then alone it could be said that the petitioner has a subsisting right to l injunction. In the present circumstances, injunction prayer was premature and, therefore, it was rightly rejected. This revision is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./B-13/K Revision dismissed.