1976 PLP 291 (SCMR)
Mst. FEROZ BEGUM‑ — Petitioner Versus Mst. AMTUL FAROOQ‑ — Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 291 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. FEROZ BEGUM‑ — Petitioner Versus Mst. AMTUL FAROOQ‑ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 291 (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 1976 PLP 291 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 291 (SCMR) (Mst. FEROZ BEGUM‑ — Petitioner Versus Mst. AMTUL FAROOQ‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fazle Haq, Advocate and Muhammd Aft al Siddiqi, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 5th March 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 19‑11‑1975, passed in Civil Revision No. 714 of 1975).
O. XXXIX, r. 1‑Injunction, temporary‑Registered sale deed in respect of disputed house purporting to show transfer of house in respondent's favour‑Document, held, good enough to justify inference of a prima facie case in respondent's favour‑Document could not be lost sight of merely on account of its being challenged as genuine‑Finding required to be given at stage of issue of temporary injunction‑Merely tentative in nature.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, .J.‑--‑The petitioner and the respondent who are widows of Raja Muhammad Afzal alias Raja Kalu Khan deceased, are litigating over the possession of House No. 73;9, B‑Block, Gujar Khan. The petitioner's suit for declaration that she is in possession of the house as a co‑sharer is pending before the Civil Judge, who rejected her application for temporary injunction. She succeeded before the District Judge in appeal but the learned Judge in High Court accepted the revision filed by the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the re‑call of the temporary injunction, ride order dated 19‑I1‑1975, she has moved this petition for special leave to appeal. Apparently finding it difficult to challenge the order of the High Court made in exercise of its discretionary revisional jurisdiction, learned counsel feebly contended before us that the High Court was not justified in reversing the order of the District Judge. Having perused the impugned judgment, we find that the District Judge had brushed aside a registered sale deed in respect of the disputed house placed on the record by the respondent purporting to show that her late husband had transferred the house in her favour. The view taken by the High Court was that this document could not be lost sight of merely on account of the challenge to its genuineness as at any rate the finding required to be given at this stage was to be merely tentative in nature and the document was goad enough to justify the inference of a prima facie case in favour of the respondent. The petition is completely devoid of force and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.