1968 SCMR 119 (PLP)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 7 OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 119 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 7 OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 119 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 119 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 119 (PLP) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 7 OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore dated the 17th August 1967, in C. R. No. 345 of 1965). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, r. 35-Possession, delivery of-Whether persons entering land as tenants could be ejected except in accordance with provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act-Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit brought by the petitioners for a declaration and permanent injunction that they were not liable to be ejected from the suit land in respect of which the respondents had obtained a decree for possession in a pre-emption suit. The claim proceeds on the ground (1) that the petitioners had in 1964 obtained a lease for five years from the vendee judgment-debtor ; and (ii) that they had entered into possession and tenants-at-will before the sale in favour of the vendee judgment-debtor had been effected. The trial Court refused to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from executing the decree for possession, but on appeal the District Judge reversed the order and granted an interim injunction to the effect that during the pendency of the suit the petitioners were not to be dispossessed except in accord ance with the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The High Court in a further revision; petition has restored the order of trial Judge and set aside the interim injunction on the groun that the lease for five years obtained by the lessees from the vendee during the pendency of the suit for pre-emption did not under the rule of lis peudens create any rights in them against the respondent dent No.
1. The claim made by the petitioners that they had entered into possession as tenants-at-will before the sale pre empted by the respondent No. 1 was effected was also ruled out on the view that the rights as tenants-at-will were put to an end by the creation of the ineffective lease for five years. The omission on the part of the District Judge to keep this legal position in view while granting interim injunction was, therefore, considered to be a defect in the exercise of jurisdiction by him to warrant interference under section 115, C. P. C. It is contended that the petitioners having entered the land as tenants they could not be ejected under. Order XXI, rule 35, C. P. C., except in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Prima facie the contention raised in support of the petition, has force. We grant leave to appeal. Security Rs. 1,
000. Thel order of the High. Court shall remain in abeyance meanwhile. Petition allowed.