1999 PLP 2008 (CLC)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2008 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2008 (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 1999 PLP 2008 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2008 (CLC) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O. XXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Temporary injunction, grant of‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement to sell was filed by plaintiff/appellant‑‑‑Execution of agreement was denied by defendant/respondent and alleged same to be result of fraud and forgery‑‑‑Trial Court had refused interim injunction on 4he ground of non‑existence of prima facie case in favour of plaintiff/appellant
Validity‑‑‑Despite the fact a sum of Rs.17,50,000 was alleged to be received by the defendant/respondent, as an earnest money out of Rs.18,00,000 being the total consideration, no sale‑deed was executed‑‑‑Revenue Record also did not show any transfer of possession in favour of the plaintiff/appellant as claimed‑‑‑Trial Court had rightly concluded that there did not exist any prima facie case for grant of injunctive relief‑‑‑Order of Trial Court did not suffer from any error of law and the injunction was rightly declined in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 26th January, 1999. This order will dispose of F.A.O. No.67 of 1996, which calls in question order, dated 26‑2‑1996 of the learned Civil Judge, Jhang, whereby an application for temporary injunction was dismissed.
2. Appellant filed a suit for specific performance to enforce an agreement of sale. It was claimed that the respondent had agreed to sell land in issue, in favour of the appellant, vide agreement, dated 13‑9‑1992 for consideration of Rs.18,00,000 and received a sum of Rs.17,50,
000. It was added that the sale deed was not executed. An application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was also filed to restrain the respondent, pending decision of the suit, from making interference in the possession of the property or from alienating the same.
3. The suit and also the application‑were resisted by the respondent, who denied the execution of the agreement and existence of sale transaction. It was maintained that the agreement was the result of fraud and forgery.
4. Learned Civil Judge, after considering the material on record, observed that there did not exist any prima facie case and, therefore, he declined interim relief.
5. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the appellant. However, learned counsel for the respondent has been heard.
6. The perusal of the pleadings, documents and other material on record reveal that the execution of the agreement was denied. Respondent had specifically stated that neither any agreement of sale was made nor any amount was received by the appellant and that the document was a result of forgery. In view of the defence, taken by the respondent, the petitioner could not be said to have any prima facie case, as the execution of the very document, which was the basis of the suit, was in dispute. Even otherwise it is not understandable as to why the sale‑deed was not executed, if the appellant had allegedly paid almost entire sale price. It is claimed that the respondent had received a sum of Rs.17,50,000 as earnest money out of the alleged price of Rs.18,00,
000. If this was so, the sale‑deed could have been executed and there was no reason why the sale‑deed was not executed. This prima facie supports the plea of respondent. Additionally, the Revenue Record does not show if any transfer of possession under any alleged agreement of sale was ever recorded. In this view of the matter, the learned Civil Judge rightly concluded that there did not exist any prima facie case for the grant of injunctive relief. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge does not suffer from any error of law, hence no ground is trade out for interference.
7. For the reasons above, this appeal is without substance, which is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified that any observation, made in this order, shall not prejudice the final decision of the suit, which will be decided by the learned trial Court on merit, in accordance with law and after recording evidence.
8. The learned trial Court shall accelerate the proceedings in the suit so as to finally decide the same within six months, with intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑995/K Appeal dismissed.