1993 PLP 828 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 828 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 828 (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 1993 PLP 828 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 828 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Sabir Sulehria for Petitioner.
- Taqi Ahmad Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2 & S.115‑‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑‑Question as to whether plaintiffs had a rightful claim qua the disputed property in their purported capacity as legal heirs of common ancestor was a matter which had to be gone into by Trial Court after recording of evidence‑‑‑Plaintiffs' prima facie had made out arguable case‑‑‑Contents of documents on record did lend support to the contention of plaintiffs that they as well as defendants were descendants of a common propositus who was owner of property in question‑‑ Remaining two ingredients for grant of stay were thus, rightly found in favour of plaintiffs‑‑‑Plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to grant of temporary injunction which was rightly granted to them by the lower Appellate court.
Judgment & Decree
The brief facts are; petitioner is aggrieved from the judgment dated 19‑1‑1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Sialkot, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the respondents against the order of the learned Civil Judge dismissing the application for temporary injunction moved by them. Respondents‑plaintiffs had instituted a suit for permanent injunction and claimed that they being co‑owners alongwith the petitioner in the disputed property, he (the defendant) be permanently restrained from interfering in their possession and also refrain from raising any construction. A pedigree table was drawn in the plaint to show that both the parties had a common ancestor namely Sultan and the disputed property having devolved on them from Sultan deceased it was joint amongst themselves and, therefore, they had a cause to rush to the Court when illegal construction was sought to be made by the defendant over the common property.
2. The defendants in the suit resisted the claim of ownership qua the disputed property as set up in the plaint. It was, infer alia, contended that the plaintiffs were not related to Sultan, the ancestor of the defendants and, therefore, the plaintiffs did not have any cause for grievance to institute the suit.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Obviously, the question as to whether or not the plaintiffs in the suit, respondents herein, do have a rightful claim qua the disputed property, in their purported. capacity as legal heirs of Sultan is a matter which is to be gone into by the trial Court after recording of evidence. Prima facie, the respondents had made out arguable case in this direction. I agree with the learned District A Judge that the contents of registered sale‑deed dated 8‑11‑1973 do lend support to the contention of the respondents that they as well as the petitioner were descendants of a common propositus namely Sultan, who was the owner of the disputed property. In this view of the matter, the remaining two ingredients for grant of stay were also rightly found in favour of the respondents. There is no merit in this civil revision, which is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, keeping in view' the previous history of the litigation, I direct that the learned trial Court shall decide the main suit within a period of two months, positively. AA./M‑648/L Revision dismissed.