1971 PLP 704 (SCMR)
KHAIR DIN AND 3 OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus JAMAL DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | 1971 PLP 704 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHAIR DIN AND 3 OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus JAMAL DIN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 704 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 704 (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: 1971 PLP 704 (SCMR) (KHAIR DIN AND 3 OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus JAMAL DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar and Jari Ullah Khan, Advocates Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Oureshi, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioners.
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 27th October 1971.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 28th September 1971, in Civil Revision No. 325 of 1971). Special leave to appeal‑Discretion exercised by Courts below concurrently not suffering from any defect‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑In a suit filed by the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Lyallpur, for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from dispossessing him illegally from the site in dispute, a temporary injunction was granted to him on his prayer for the same, on an application moved under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, the respondent filed another application complaining that lie had been illegally dispossessed in spite of the temporary injunction. On this application, the learned Civil Judge ordered that the respondent should be put back into possession. The petitioners challenged this order in a revision application to the High Court, which has been dismissed, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal. It is manifest from the orders of the Courts below that the respondent was in actual physical possession of the disputed premises, and is running a sweetmeat shop there. His physical possession has been protected by the interim relief granted to him without prejudice to the rights and title of the petitioners, which will be duly adjudicated in the suit, which is still pending. The learned Single Judge in the High Court has protected the interests of the petitioners by directing the respondent to deposit Rs. 150.00 per mensem in Court to be paid to the petitioners as compensation for the user of the premises, in Case his suit is dismissed. We do not consider that tile exercised by the Courts below concurrenty in this matter in the respondent's favour suffers from any defect. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.