1978 PLP 291 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MUJTABA-Petitioner Versus RAZIA BEGUM-Respondent
| Citation | 1978 PLP 291 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Qaisar Khan, Muhammad Haleem and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUJTABA-Petitioner Versus RAZIA BEGUM-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 291 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 291 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Qaisar Khan, Muhammad Haleem and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 291 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MUJTABA-Petitioner Versus RAZIA BEGUM-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Akhtar Ali Haidri, Advocate and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on- Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 15th May 1978.
- Sardar Akhtar Ali Haidri, Advocate and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
- Mohammad Mujtaba has thus filed this petition for special leave to appeal. After hearing Sardar Akhtar Ali learned Advocate for the petitioner and going through the various orders we have come to the conclusion that no exception could be taken to the order of the learned Additional District Judge according to whom there was a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff. No fault could be found in the aforesaid order and we would therefore dismiss this petition.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Peshawar High Court, dated the 11th of March 1978 in Civil Revision No. 73 of 1978).
Art. 185(3)
Special leave to appeal-Appellate Court finding prima facie case and balance of convenience in petitioner's favour and ordering issuing of a temporary injunction-No fault being found in such orders, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Akhtar Ali Haidri, Advocate and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 15th May 1978. QAISAR KHAN, J.‑Mst. Razia Begum is the owner of a house situated in Peshawar Cantonment. There are ventilators in the said house which overlook the adjacent house of Mohammad Mujtaba. Mohammad Mujtaba started construction in his house which construction could block the ventilators of the house of Mst. Razia Begum. On the 4th of September 1977 Mst. Razia Begum instituted a suit against Mohammad Mujtaba for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making construction in such a way as to block the ventilators of her house, on the ground that she had obtained a right of easement for the ventilators by long user. With the plaint a petition was filed for temporary injunction. The learned Civil Judge in the first instance issued an interim injunction but when the defendant filed his written statement and contested the interim injunction order the learned Civil Judge by his order dated the 13th of November 1977 vacated the temporary injunction.' Mst. Razia Begum went up in appeal against the aforesaid order to the Court of District Judge and a learned Additional District Judge by his order dated the 5th of February 1978 held that prima facie the plaintiff had a case and that the balance of evidence was in favour of the plaintiff. He therefore ordered the issuing of a temporary injunction. Mohammad Mujtaba went up in revision to the High Court against the aforesaid order but a learned Single Judge in the High Court by his order dated the 11th of March 1978 dismissed the revision petition. Mohammad Mujtaba has thus filed this petition for special leave to appeal. After hearing Sardar Akhtar Ali learned Advocate for the petitioner and going through the various orders we have come to the conclusion that no exception could be taken to the order of the learned Additional District Judge according to whom there was a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff. No fault could be found in the aforesaid order and we would therefore dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.