2010 PLP 739 (CLC)
ABDUL RASHID ANSARI — Petitioner Versus JAZZ MOBILINK CO. through Director Engineer and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 739 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID ANSARI — Petitioner Versus JAZZ MOBILINK CO. through Director Engineer and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 739 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 739 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 739 (CLC) (ABDUL RASHID ANSARI — Petitioner Versus JAZZ MOBILINK CO. through Director Engineer and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taqi Ahmad Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 42 & 54
Suit for declaration and permanent injunction
Plaintiff who claimed to be owner of the suit property, had sought injunction against the defendants from raising tower thereon
Suit which was resisted by the defendants, was dismissed by the Trial Court and appeal filed by the plaintiff against judgment of the Trial Court was also dismissed by the Appellate Court
Record showed that there were several previous rounds of litigation between the parties, whereas the plaintiff had raised the same claim with regard to the same property on the same ground and finally Supreme Court had concluded that the plaintiff had no right over the property in dispute; it was on the basis of said judgment of the Supreme Court that the Trial Court dismissed the suit which judgment was maintained in appeal
Controversy attempted to be raised, had already been decided by the Supreme Court
Suit by the appellant, in circumstances, was rightly dismissed
No exception could be taken to the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the two courts below.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This civil revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 24-6-2009 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 14-4-2009 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis are; that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents claiming to be owner of property in dispute measuring 5 Marlas and seeking an injunction against the respondents from raising tower thereupon. The suit was resisted. However, it was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14-4-2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed vide impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 24-6-2009.
3. Petitioner and the counsel for the respondents have been heard. Since the petitioner is appearing in person, the learned A.A.-G. was also asked to assist the Court on his behalf.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the property in dispute i.e. land measuring 5 Marlas through registered sale-deed, the possession whereof he has obtained through the execution of the decree of the Court. However, the respondents had dispossessed him and was now raising the tower. It appears from the record that there are several previous rounds of litigation whereas the petitioner had raised the same claim with regard to the same property on the same grounds. The matter eventually more than one reached the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and finally vide judgment dated 30-11-2006 the apex Court concluded that the petitioner had no right over the property in dispute. It is on the basis of the afore-said judgment of the honourable Supreme Court that the trial Court dismissed the suit which judgment was maintained in appeal. There can be no escape from the fact that the controversy now attempted to be raised has already been decided by the honourable Supreme Court vide judgment dated 30-11-2006, hence, suit of the petitioner has rightly been dismissed. No exception can be taken to the impugned judgments and decrees. This petition is without merit and is dismissed. S.A.K. /A-324/L Petition dismissed.