1991 PLP 1474 (CLC)
Haji NOOR SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAKIM KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1474 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Shaikh J |
| Parties | Haji NOOR SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAKIM KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908).‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1474 (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 1991 PLP 1474 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Shaikh J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1474 (CLC) (Haji NOOR SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAKIM KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ikram‑ul‑Haq on behalf of Jari Ullah Khan for Petitioner.
- Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 115, & OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑ Appellate Court below on basis of evidence on record found that plaintiff/petitioner had no prima facie case and that balance of convenience was also not in his favour‑‑‑Order of Appellate Court below based on evidence on record and passed on sound judicial principles and being in accordance with rules and principles laid down by superior Courts regarding issuance of temporary injunction during pendency of suit, could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ikram‑ul‑Haq on behalf of Jari Ullah Khan for Petitioner. Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1991. This revision petition is directed against order dated 13‑9‑1980 passed by learned Addl. District Judge; Faisalabad accepting the appeal against order dated 23‑7‑1979 passed by, learned trial Court, through which the application for issuance of temporary injunction was accepted.
2. The learned trial Court held that the petitioner had prima facie case and the case was fit one, for issuance of temporary injunction.
3. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff was based sale‑deed dated 18‑1‑1978 through which he purchased Killa No. 11 of squire No.57 whereas he also claimed title in killa No. 12 of square No.57 in the suit. The learned lower Appellate Court held that it was not denied that Kills P4o.12‑of square No.57 was part of khewat‑No.45 which was previously owned by Muhammad Usman and Riaz Hussain defendants alongwith others. The defendants in the suit claimed that they were owners of the suit property from Muhammad Usman defendant whereas the present petitioner/plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the property from Riaz Hussain. In view of these facts coupled with the fact that in the sale -deed of the petitioner no mention was made of kills No.12 of square No.57 and. that lease holder/defendants having not attorned to the plaintiff it was held by the learned power Appellate Court that the plaintiff‑ failed to establish prima facie case and the order, of the trial Court was passed by overlooking the above fact. The learned‑ lower‑ Appellate Court in these circumstances, held that the plaintiff/petitioner was not able to establish prima facie case in' his favour and in view of the fact that the property was with the tenants no case was made out for maintenance of status quo particularly when the tenants had not attorned to the plaintiff.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy me that the order passed by learned lower Appellate Court impugned in this revision petition Suffers from any material irregularity and illegality calling for interference under section 115 C.P C. The order passed by learned lower Appellate Court in my view has been passed on sound judicial principles and is in accordance with the rules and principles laid down by the superior Courts regarding issuance of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner was rightly held to have no prima facie case and balance of convenience was also not in his favour. The injunction application was rightly dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court on acceptance of appeal. The revision petition has no merits which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T. N‑420/L Revision petition/dismiss