1988 PLP 1269 (CLC)

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑

0. I, R. 1‑‑Joinder of plaintiffs‑ ‑Requirements for where facts and circumstances of case and question of law and evidence to establish case of several plaintiffs were same, such plaintiffs, held, would be entitled to file one suit. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑

0. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.53 & 54‑‑Suit for injunction‑‑Original allotment documents of plots issued in favour of plaintiffs including duly signed blank transfer deeds were misplaced‑‑There being apprehension of misuse of such documents by some unscrupulous person for obtaining transfer of plots in his favour, request of plaintiffs to defendants Authorities to make inquiry before transferring plots, prima facie, seemed to be proper‑‑Balance of convenience being in favour of plaintiffs, if injunction was not granted, irreparable loss, held, would be caused to them. Sair Ali and Najmur Rahman for Plaintiffs. Nemo for Defendants. The learned counsel has pointed out that although there are several plaintiffs to whom different plots were allotted the complaint and the request made by them to the defendants is the same and the defendants have rejected it by a letter addressed to them and also repeating the same in separate letters. The facts and circumstances of the case and the question of law arising and also the evidence to A establish the plaintiffs' case will be the same. In these circumstances in my view the plaintiffs are entitled to file one suit. The question of court‑fee shall be considered at the time of final hearing.

2. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for injunction against the defendants for restraining them permanently from making any changes in the records regarding the plots described in para 1 of the plaint or effecting any transfer or alienation contrary to the instructions of the plaintiffs. without holding any enquiry. The facts are that the plots mentioned in para.l of the plaint were allotted to the plaintiffs. The Plaintiff No. 2 came to Karachi from Lahore with the file containing original allotment documents alongwith the blank transfer documents with signature of the plaintiffs to obtain best offers for the same. It so happened that these files were misplaced. The plaintiffs, therefore, sent a telegram on 1‑10‑1986 to the defendants asking them not to entertain any application or document from any one for transfer of these plots without their personal appearance before the Society. Letter to this effect was also issued and the plaintiffs continued to pursue the same with the defendants which replied that it would not take any responsibility on such matters and dealings and that the issue should be amicably settled at the plaintiffs end. It was further stated that the Authority is bound to honour valid transfer documents when received in its office for further proceeding. In these circumstances the present suit was filed and application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C . P. C . was also moved. The defendants in their affidavit stated that it is the practice of defendant No.l to accept validly executed transfer documents either to the personal presence of transferor or in the alternative the mutation letter duly signed by the transferor has been countersigned /attested by a Colonel or above of the Army or of equivalent rank of the Navy and Air Force. These documents are then checked and are placed before the planning Branch and Director Administration the defendant No.2 and then are put up to the Administrator for approval. It is after the approval of the Administrator that the transfer in favour of the transferee and necessary mutation is made in the relevant file. In the present case the plea of the plaintiffs is that their duly signed blank transfer deeds have been misplaced and it is apprehended. that these documents may be produced before the defendants for obtaining transfer of these plots. In these circumstances the request of the plaintiffs to the defendants to make enquiry before transferring the plots prima facie seems .to be proper. The balance of convenience b is. also in their favour, further if injunction is not granted irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiffs. I, therefore, restrain the defendants from effecting any transfer alienation or change the entries in their record in respect of the plots mentioned in para 1 of the plaint till further orders. H.B.T./A‑215/K Injunction granted.