1991 PLP 1455 (CLC)
GULZAR MASIH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1455 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | GULZAR MASIH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1455 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1455 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1455 (CLC) (GULZAR MASIH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ashiq Hussain Malik for Petitioners. Respondent No.4 in person.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr.l, 2 & S.115‑‑‑Suit for possession of a house on ground of ownership‑‑‑Temporary injunction, grant of‑‑‑Question of grant of temporary injunction was not considered by Courts below in accordance with guiding principles laid down by superior Courts‑‑‑High Court, accepted revision, set aside concurrent orders of Courts below and directed parties to maintain status quo till decision of suit by Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr.l, 2 & S.115‑‑‑Suit for possession of a house on ground of ownership‑‑‑Temporary injunction, grant of‑‑‑Question of grant of temporary injunction was not considered by Courts below in accordance with guiding principles laid down by superior Courts‑‑‑High Court, accepted revision, set aside concurrent orders of Courts below and directed parties to maintain status quo till decision of suit by Trial Court. Ashiq Hussain Malik for Petitioners. Respondent No.4 in person. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990. Gulzar Masih and four others, petitioners filed suit for possession to the effect that they were owners in possession of disputed Ahata situated in Chak No.104 Shumali, Tehsil and District Sargodha, against Raulla and three others, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha. As a consequential relief, they prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the house raised by them on the disputed Ahata. Alongwith the suit, they filed application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the disputed Ahata and from demolishing the construction raised by them. The application was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 29‑11‑1981. The appeal filed by the petitioners also failed on 11‑2 1982 Hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the documents annexed with the plaint it is very much obvious that the petitioners are owners in possession of the disputed Ahata and that the question of grant of temporary injunction has not been considered by the Courts below, in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts. Sardar Ali respondent is present in person. He has not opposed this petition.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. The suit was filed in the year 1981. The High Court vide its order dated 3‑11‑1985 had passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute. Since Sardar Ali has not contested this petition, therefore, without making any expression with regard to the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of the either party, I feel inclined to accept this revision.
4. Resultantly, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the decision of the suit by the trial Court. The parties shall bear their own posts.
5. Although the suit was filed in the year 1981, yet the same has not been decided so far. The trial court shall decide the case within six months from today and may proceed from day to day, if necessary.