1992 PLP 1699 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ISHTIAO HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus ZULFIOAR ALI ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1699 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHTIAO HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus ZULFIOAR ALI ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1699 (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 1992 PLP 1699 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1699 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ISHTIAO HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus ZULFIOAR ALI ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Lal Khan Baloch for Appellants.
- Mirza Umar Hayat for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th March, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr.1 & 2‑‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑‑Court while granting temporary injunction directed that if plaintiffs could not deposit specified amount by specified date, their suit would stand dismissed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order in question, to the extent it directed that in case of failure of plaintiffs to deposit specified amount by specified date, their suit would stand dismissed was in excess of jurisdiction‑‑‑Court while granting temporary injunction could impose condition and same would be justified‑‑‑Only penal consequence which could be provided for non‑compliance of order could be dismissal of application for temporary injunction and not dismissal of suit‑‑‑Trial Court's order was modified to the extent that in event of failure of plaintiffs to deposit specified amount as directed by Trial Court their application for temporary injunction would stand dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Mirza Umar Hayat for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th March, 1992. A suit for possession through specific performance was filed by Muhammad Ishtiaq and others, the appellants herein, against Zulfiqar Ali respondent in the Civil Court at Faisalabad. Alongwith the plaint an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was also made. The suit as well as the application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 were contested by the respondent on various pleas. The trial Court vide its order dated 26th January, 1992 accepted the application for temporary injunction subject to the condition that the appellants/plaintiffs shall deposit Rs.16,00,000 in the Government Treasury till 16th February, 1992 failing which their suit shall stand dismissed.
2. Aggrieved by this order the appellants have come in appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court acted without jurisdiction in observing that in case the appellants fail to deposit Rs.16,00,000, the suit of the appellants shall stand dismissed. According to the learned counsel such a condition could not be imposed under any law. The learned counsel for the appellants has however, supported the impugned order.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the impugned order to the extent it directs that in case of failure of the appellants to deposit Rs.16,00,000 till 16th February, 1992, the suit of the appellants would stand dismissed is clearly in excess of jurisdiction vesting in the trial Court. The appellants had filed the suit averring that there was an agreement to sell between the parties which may be specifically enforced. The defendant/respondent had inter alia denied the execution of that agreement. In the circumstances the suit filed by the appellants could only be decided after framing the relevant issues.
5. It cannot be denied that the trial Court while hearing the application for temporary injunction could in terms of the Order 39, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. impose a condition and as such the direction to deposit the money as a condition to the grant of temporary injunction was justified but the trial Court could not certainly direct that in the event of non‑compliance of that order the suit shall stand dismissed. The only penal consequences which could beg provided for non‑compliance of the order could be the dismissal of the application for temporary injunction. For the reasons aforesaid this appeal is accepted and the order of the trial Court is modified to the extent that in the event of failure of the appellants to deposit the amount of Rs.16,00,000 as directed by the trial Court, their application for temporary injunction shall stand dismissed. A.A./M‑316/L Appeal accepted.