1979 PLP 107 (SCMR)
MESSRS CRESCENT I‑FILMS, MANGAL MANSION, ROYAL PARK, LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1979 PLP 107 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----O. XXXIX, r. 1‑Temporary injunction‑Observations in orders arising in proceedings of temporary injunction‑Held, only tentative and do not prejudice case on merits.‑Injunction. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MESSRS CRESCENT I‑FILMS, MANGAL MANSION, ROYAL PARK, LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 107 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 107 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----O. XXXIX, r. 1‑Temporary injunction‑Observations in orders arising in proceedings of temporary injunction‑Held, only tentative and do not prejudice case on merits.‑Injunction. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 107 (SCMR) (MESSRS CRESCENT I‑FILMS, MANGAL MANSION, ROYAL PARK, LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 19th October 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 5th April 1978 passed in Civil Revision No. 412 of 1978).
O. XXXIX, r. 1‑Temporary injunction‑Observations in orders arising in proceedings of temporary injunction‑Held, only tentative and do not prejudice case on merits.‑[Injunction].
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order dated 5‑4‑1978 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the peti tioner's Civil Revision No. 412 of 1978. The revision petition was from the refusal of the trial and appellate Courts on the footing that the petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction in a suit for declaration in which it claimed to have become the owner of the property through adverse possession. Earlier, an order of ejectment from the property which the petitioner claimed to be in its possession, was passed and confirmed in appeal upto the High Court against one Rafiq on the ground that he was a defaulter in the payment of rent and had sublet the premises to the petitioner. It is thereafter that the petitioner instituted a suit out of which the present proceedings have arisen. In the High Court it was submitted that the Court below erred in rejecting the stay application. It was argued that the property in question had never been acquired by the Government and was., therefore, not evacuee. The learned Judge has held that even assuming that the acquisition bad not materialised, the property was to be treated as evacuee property until the repeal in 1974 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957. On the other hand, the property had indeed stood acquired and transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, a person in possession of it would become a tenant of the transferee and. this negatives the plea of adverse possession taken by the petitioner in its suit. The revision petition was, therefore, dismissed. Before us, the petitioner has reiterated the submissions it made before the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner we are not inclined to take any objection to the view taken by the High Court. Besides, nothing has been. shown to us whereby it can be inferred that in refusing temporary injunction to the petitioner the Courts had exercised their discretion illegally. An exception has, however, been taken by the learned counsel to the observation made by the learned Judge in the High Court as to the competency of the petitioner's suit. Suffice it to say that such observations in an order arising in proceedings of temporary injunction are only tentative and do not prejudice the case on merits. This petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.