1989 PLP 4168 (MLD)
PEER AHMAD YAR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAMAL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4168 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | PEER AHMAD YAR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAMAL‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4168 (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 1989 PLP 4168 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4168 (MLD) (PEER AHMAD YAR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAMAL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Tayyib for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2 & 5.115‑‑Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 53‑A‑ Temporary injunction‑‑Petitioner, seeking injunction, contended that since he had obtained possession of disputed land under agreement to sell, therefore, same stood protected under section 53‑A, Transfer of Property Act and that this aspect had not been considered by Courts below‑‑Courts below, refusing injunction, anxiously attended to prerequisites for grant of temporary injunction and had given sound and cogent reasons in support of conclusion arrived at by them‑ Impugned order of Courts below not suffering from illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional defect‑‑Interference declined in revision.
Judgment & Decree
A.R. Tayyib for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. On 30‑3‑1988 Peer Ahmad Yar petitioner filed suit for Specific Performance of Contract. Alongwith the suit he filed ‑application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the land till the decision of the case and from disturbing his possession over the suit land. The trial Court dismissed the application on 20‑12‑1988. The appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against this order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar on 13‑2‑1989, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had obtained the possession of the disputed land under agreement to sell, therefore, the same stands, protected under section 53‑A of the Transfer of Property Act, and this aspect has not been considered by the Courts below and that m any case, the respondents cannot eject the petitioner forcibly.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. I find that the Courts below have' anxiously attended to the prerequisites for grant of temporary injunction and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. The impugned orders do not suffer from illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional defect. It may be noted here that in the plaint no prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession or for restraining them from further alienation of the land has been made. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed. M.Y H./A‑673/1, Petition dismissed,