2002 PLP 1417 (SCMR)
Mst. FATIMA BIBI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1417 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. FATIMA BIBI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1417 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1417 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1417 (SCMR) (Mst. FATIMA BIBI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.A.A. Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 6‑4‑1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.265 of 1999). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. XXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Temporary injunction, grant of‑‑‑Suit for declaration and permanent injunction‑‑‑Plaintiffs claimed to be joint owners of suit‑land and in physical possession of a portion thereof, wherein they had put up a brick‑kiln for the last 20 years and contended that they were apprehending interference with their such possession and alienation of suit land by the defendants‑‑‑Plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction was granted by Trial Court‑‑‑Appellate Court set aside the order of Trial Court and High Court upheld the same in revision‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Plaintiffs had been in physical possession of suit‑land, wherein they had established a brick‑kiln, which was in operation‑‑‑Plaintiffs' claim was tenable and prima facie, any alienation of suit‑land by defendants would complicate things, which might lead to multiplicity of civil and even criminal proceedings‑‑‑Balance of convenience was in favour of plaintiffs and refusal of protection to parties during pendency of proceedings could lead to irreparable loss‑‑‑Supreme Court converted the petition into appeal and accepted the same while setting aside the impugned orders and restoring the order of Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL‑UL‑REHMAN RAMDAY, J.‑‑‑The petitioners herein brought a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Pasroor seeking a declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit land in question described in paras. 3 and 4 of the plaint and seeking also a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and others from alienating the land in question or from interfering in the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs therein. This suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. praying for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants and others from alienating the land in question or from interfering with the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs of the said suit land. Through an order dated 15‑5‑1998, the learned Civil Judge granted the ad interim injunction, as prayed.
2. The respondents before us questioned the said order by way of an appeal which appeal was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge at Pasroor through an order dated 13‑2‑1999 and resultantly the above mentioned order dated 15‑5‑1999 passed by a learned Civil Judge was set aside. The petitioners‑herein impugned the said Appellate order before the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No.265 of 1995 which petition was, however, dismissed on 6‑4‑1999.
3. Hence this petition under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution.
4. It is the case of the petitioners before us that they are the joint owners of the land in question; that they were in actual physical possession of a portion of the said suit land described in paras. 3 and 4 of the plaint (hereinafter called the suit land); that they had even put up a brick‑kiln in the said suit land which was operating, therefore, the last about 20 years; that they were apprehending interference by the respondents with their possession of the said suit land and the said brick‑klin; that they were further apprehending that the respondents will alienate the suit land in question which was then likely to cause irreparable loss to them; that the balance of convenience was in their favour and further that they had good prima facie which entitled them to the interim relief that they had sought.
5. It is the claim of the petitioners that they were in actual physical possession of the suit land wherein they had established a brick‑klin which was in operation. We have not found it possible for us to hold the said claim of the petitioners to be untenable, at least prima facie. In this view of the matter any effort to dispossess the petitioners from the suit land or any alienation on the part of the respondents would only complicate things which might even lead to multiplicity of proceedings, civil and even criminal. The balance of convenience is thus in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs and the refusal of protection to the parties during the pendency of the suit in question could lead to irreparable loss.
6. Consequently, this petition is converted into appeal. The order dated 6‑4‑1999 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No.265 of 1999 as also the order dated 13‑2‑1999 of the learned Additional District Judge at Pasroor are set aside restoring the order, dated 15‑5‑1998 of the learned Trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. S.A.K./F‑56/S Petition accepted.