2008 PLP 138 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AFAQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 138 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFAQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 138 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 138 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 138 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AFAQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahal for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Muhammad Sarwar respondent-plaintiff and Muhammad Afaq petitioner-defendant are co-owners in a joint khata. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a suit for the partition of the khata has been filed by the petitioner, which is pending before the Tehsildar, Shahpur.
2. Without disclosing the aforesaid fact, the respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioner. The said suit is pending before the learned Civil Court at Shahpur. Along with his suit, the respondent filed an application seeking interim injunction to restrain the petitioner from interfering in his possession and from cutting/damaging trees standing on the land. This application has been allowed by the learned trial Court on 13-6-2005. An appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha on 28-4-2006. The petitioner impugns both orders. He states, firstly, that the respondent-plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary relief because he concealed a material circumstance from the Court. Secondly, it was argued that the restraining order passed by the learned Courts below has been construed by the Tehsildar as an order staying the proceedings in the partition suit pending before him. As a consequence, the petitioner is being gravely prejudiced.
3. On the above basis, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order granting interim relief to the respondent was not justified. There is much merit in this submission. Furthermore, it is clear from the plaint filed by the respondent that he has concealed from the Court the material fact that the petitioner had already filed a partition suit which was pending before the Tehsildar Shahpur.
4. In the foregoing circumstances, this petition is allowed. As a consequence, the orders, dated 13-6-2005, passed by the learned trial Court, and 28-4-2006, passed by the learned appellate Court are set aside with the result that the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking temporary injunction is dismissed. H.B.T./M-525/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision allowed.