1986 PLP 748 (MLD)
QASIM and others — Appellants Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 748 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | QASIM and others — Appellants Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 748 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 748 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 748 (MLD) (QASIM and others — Appellants Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2 & S.115--Temporary injunction--Order to grant or refuse injunction, held, within discretion of Court--High Court declined in revisional jurisdiction to interfere with orders falling legitimately within discretion of subordinate Courts.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Appellants. The State land in question was held by Nawab Din and others as tenant. Due to breach of conditions of tenancy, the land was resumed in the year 1951. The tenancy rights were put to be auctioned and the bid of respondents Nos.4 to 7 being the highest was accepted.
2. The petitioners who claim to be in cultivating possession of the land, filed a suit to challenge the auction. Alongwith the plaint they moved an application for grant of temporary injunction, which was refused by the learned trial Court and their appeal also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence this revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsel. The petitioners' possession is covered by any written order of the Collector. Even the tenancy Nawab Din and others under whom they claimed to be sub‑tenant been cancelled and the land resumed. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be said to have prima facie case. The injunction was thus rightly declined. Even otherwise the grant or refusal of injunction, was within discretion of the learned Courts below. This Court would to interfere, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, with orders falling legitimately within the discretion of the Courts.
4. The learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioners' crops are standing in the land and they cannot be dispossessed without payment of compensation.
5. This is a matter to be looked into by the Collector but so far as the instant revision is concerned this argument does not furnish a basis to grant the temporary injunction. There is no merit in this revision, dismissed in limine. M. Y. H: Revised dismissed.