1988 PLP 2313 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑Petitioner Versus SALAMATULLAH BAIG‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 2313 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Asadullah, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑Petitioner Versus SALAMATULLAH BAIG‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 2313 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 2313 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Asadullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 2313 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑Petitioner Versus SALAMATULLAH BAIG‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Noor Muhammad for Petitioner.
- Saeed Akhtar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Temporary injunction, grant of‑‑Petitioner admittedly in possession of property in dispute and possession itself being a strong evidence of title, temporary injunction, held, could be granted in favour of petitioner‑‑Allegation of respondent that document on which petitioner had based his claim was a forged document; would be gone into and finally settled when case would be decided on merits.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Noor Muhammad for Petitioner. Saeed Akhtar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th February, 1988. A suit for specific performance of the contract has been filed by the petitioner in which he also filed an application for issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the property in dispute till the decision of the case. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur accepted the application for grant of temporary injunction vide order dated 23‑5‑1987. The respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur vide order dated 20‑12‑19.87. The petitioner has challenged this appellate decision through this revision petition. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The allegation of the respondent is that the document on which the petitioner bases his claim is in itself a forged document. However, this aspect will be gone into and finally settled when the case is decided on merits. For the present it is sufficient tc say that admittedly the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute. It is commonly said that possession in itself is a strong evidence of title. Only on this account the temporary injunction should have been allowed' in favour of the petitioner. Apart from that the learned counsel far the respondent made a statement before the learned trial Court on 16‑10‑1986 in which he stated that he had no objection to the grant of interim relief prayed for by the petitioner‑plaintiff. In view of this statement, the temporary relief could not be refused to the petitioner.
3. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The appellate decision dated 20‑12‑1987 is set aside and the order dated 23‑5‑1987 of the learned Senior Civil Judge is restored.
4. Costs will be costs in the case. H . B . T . / M‑804/ L Petition accepted.