1992 PLP 737 (SCMR)
HABIB‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZEENAT‑UN‑NISA and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 737 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | HABIB‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZEENAT‑UN‑NISA and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 737 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 737 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 737 (SCMR) (HABIB‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZEENAT‑UN‑NISA and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hakeem Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 23‑11‑1991 of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, in Civil Revision No.71 of 1990). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 42, 53 & 54‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for' leave to appeal‑‑‑Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants that they should not undertake any type of construction on the disputed land as the sales were without the consent of petitioner‑‑Trial Court refused to grant the interim injunction and observed that the defendants would be doing the‑ construction work at their own risk and would not demand any compensation if the suit of the plaintiff was decreed against them‑‑‑High Court upheld the view of trial Court‑‑‑Held order impugned in the petition was of a temporary nature and the suit was still pending which was at final stage‑‑ Result of the suit would not affect the interest of the petitioner in view of the observation made by the Trial Court‑‑‑Supreme Court, however, further directed the respondents that if they had constructed the shops they should deposit the rent of the shops in the Trial Court and the Trial Court after final disposal of the suit would also make such order in respect of the rent so deposited by the respondents as required by law.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Hakeem Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th December, 1991. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 5‑11‑1991 of the High Court.
2. The facts, in brief are, that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants that they should not undertake any type of construction on the disputed land as the sales are without the consent of the petitioner. An application for interim injunction was also made. The learned trial Judge refused to grant the interim injunction to the petitioner. However, it was observed that the defendants will be doing the construction work ' at their own risk and they shall not demand any compensation if the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against them. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal before the Additional District Judge who accepted the appeal and directed that status quo be maintained till the disposal of the appeal. This order was challenged by the defendants Nos.2 to 7 in the High Court in a Revision Petition which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.
3. In para. 6 of the High Court's judgment, it has been recorded as follows:‑-- As the evidence has been concluded in the case as per statement of the learned counsel for the respondent and now a judgment is to be passed by the learned trial Court and the construction of an area of one marla is now complete, therefore, in facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment dated 11‑6‑1990 of the learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra is set aside and the order dated 25‑1‑1990 of the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Mansehra is restored and this petition is disposed of accordingly."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the property is joint and the vendees are constructing shops on the disputed land as such the interest of the petitioner would be adversely affected. The trial Judge has taken care of the interest of the petitioner and specifically stated that the defendants are raising construction at their own risk. The order impugned in this petition is of temporary nature and the suit is still pending which is at the final stage. The result of the suit would not affect the interest of the petitioner in view of the direction made by the trial Court. The respondents are further directed that if they had constructed the shops they should deposit the rent of the shops in the trial Court and the trial Court after final disposal of the suit would also make such order in respect of the rent so deposited by the respondents.
5. The petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. M.BA./H‑138/S Leave refused.