2004 PLP 1111 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus MAHNGA KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1111 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus MAHNGA KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1111 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1111 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1111 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus MAHNGA KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 14-10-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revision No. 886 of 1999).
Ss. 42 & 54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Suit for declaration and permanent injunction
Plaintiff claimed four sale deeds to be Benami and that defendant was his tenant-- Trial Court granted temporary injunction directing defendant not to alienate suit property
Order of Appellate Court setting aside interim order was maintained by High Court in revision filed by plaintiff-- Validity
Registered sale deeds had prima facie established title of defendant to suit land
Plaintiff could not be said to have a prima facie case, unless such deeds were displaced
Plaintiff had filed suit after more than twenty six years of first registered transaction and more than twenty four years after last transaction
Such inaction on the part of plaintiff would be taken a circumstance going against him
Mere possession would not entitle plaintiff to interim injunction
Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave.
O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2
Mere possession would not entitle plaintiff to grant of interim injunction.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 14-10-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No. 885 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts briefly narrated are that the petitioner filed a declaratory suit with permanent injunction against the respondent praying that four different sale deeds, the detail of which is given in the plaint, were in fact Benami transactions. The respondent/defendant, according to him, was his tenant. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed and the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot, accepted the said application and directed the respondent/defendant not to alienate the disputed property. An appeal was filed against this interim order and the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, through his judgment, dated 6-5-1999 accepted the same and set aside the interim order of the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot. The petitioner preferred a Civil Revision No. 886 of 1999 before the Lahore High Court, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge through the judgment, dated 14-10-1999, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with the petition. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has advanced cogent reasons in declining the prayer of the petitioner. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge which is in the following terms:
"
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The registered sale deeds prima facie, establish title of the respondent to the land in dispute. Unless it was displaced, it could not be said that the petitioner had a prima facie case. The petitioner had filed the suit on 30-9-1997 after more than 26 years of the first registered transaction and more than 24 years after the last registered transaction. The inaction on the part of the petitioner was also taken to be a circumstance going against the petitioner. I am in agreement" with the observation of the learned First Appellate Court that mere possession did not entitle in the petitioner to the interim injunction see do ground to interfere This petition is, accordingly dismissed." For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed and leave declined. S.A.K./M-597/S Leave refused.