2001 PLP 1536 (MLD)
FAIZ BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. KANIZ FATIMA and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1536 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J |
| Parties | FAIZ BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. KANIZ FATIMA and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1536 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1536 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1536 (MLD) (FAIZ BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. KANIZ FATIMA and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G.N. Gohar for Petitioners.
- Sayed Muhammad Anwar Shah for Respondents.
- Date of hearing; 24th June, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑‑S.12‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement‑‑‑Temporary injunction, grant of‑‑ Revisional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Civil Court declined the grant of injunction to the extent of possession, but alienation of the suit property was stayed by the Court‑‑‑Execution agreement of suit land and plea of delivery of possession in part performance of agreement was also under issue‑‑‑Trial Court was justified in declining the injunctive relief qua the possession‑‑‑If the plaintiffs were entered as lessees in the Revenue Record, the defendants could not be restrained from taking legal steps for charging the rent and mesne profit‑‑‑Refusal to grant injunctive relief in regard to possession could not be objected to for any valid reason in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Sayed Muhammad Anwar Shah for Respondents. Date of hearing; 24th June, 1999. This order will dispose of C.R. No. 140 of 1999 which calls in question order dated 6‑1‑1999 of the learned Civil Judge, Liaqatpur, on application for grant of temporary injunction.
2. Petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale claiming that the respondents had agreed to sell the land in issue in their favour vide agreement dated 25‑6‑1995. Application for grant of temporary injunction was also moved. The learned Civil Judge declined the grant of injunction to the extent of possession but, however, alienation of the property was stayed.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
4. Perusal of the pleadings indicates that execution of agreement of disputed land and that plea of delivery of possession in part performance of agreement of sale is also under issue. In this view of the matter, the learned Civil Judge was justified in declining the injunctive relief qua possession. If the petitioners were entered as lessees in the Revenue Record, the respondents could not be restrained from taking legal steps for charging the rent and mesne profit. The refusal to grant injunctive relief in regard to possession cannot be objected to for any valid reason.
5. There being no substance in this revision petition the same is accordingly dismissed.
6. It is, however, directed that the main suit shall be decided by the learned Civil Judge within three months. H.B.T./F‑42/L Revision dismissed.