2002 PLP 952 (MLD)
VIP HAIDER ESTATE through President and Chief Executive Officer‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus PICIC COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 952 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | S.A. Rabbani, J |
| Parties | VIP HAIDER ESTATE through President and Chief Executive Officer‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus PICIC COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 952 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 952 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: S.A. Rabbani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 952 (MLD) (VIP HAIDER ESTATE through President and Chief Executive Officer‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus PICIC COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.40‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX. Rr.1 & 2‑‑ Interim injunction, grant of‑‑‑Right of third person‑‑‑Payment of commission‑‑‑Plaintiff being a broker and Commission Agent claimed to have located the suit property for the vendee ‑‑‑Non‑payment of commission to the plaintiff had created a charge on the suit property under S.40 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Suit in question was for recovery of money which included claim of the plaintiff about commission and in case the suit was decreed, the plaintiff would be entitled to the recovery of the commission, claim whereof was included in the suit‑‑‑Plaintiff did not have prima facie case for interim injunction‑‑‑Application was dismissed in circumstances. Farrukh Zia Shaikh for Plaintiff. Miss Naheed A. Shahid for Defendant No.
1. Rizwan Ahmed for Defendant No.2.
Judgment & Decree
Miss Naheed A. Shahid for Defendant No.
1. Rizwan Ahmed for Defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 have advertised sale of some of their property and the defendant No.1 is interested to purchase the same. The plaintiff, who is a broker and commission agent, claims that he had located the property and, for his commission, he has a charge on the property under section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act. Mr. Farrukh Zia Shaikh, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that since he has a charge over the property for payment of his commission for location of the property, the property cannot be sold to defendant No.1, with whom the plaintiff had an agreement. Miss Naheed A. Shahid, learned counsel for the defendant No. l, submits that the plaintiff has no agreement with the defendant No. l and he has no claim of ownership or any other right in the property in dispute. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, learned counsel for the defendant No.2, submits that they want to sell their property and they have no concern with the plaintiff or his claim. The suit is substantially for recovery of money, which includes the claim of the plaintiff about commission, and, in case the suit is decreed, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the recovery of the commission, claim whereof is included in the suit. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has no case, prima facie, for an interim injunction, to interfere with the sale of the property in dispute. The application is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./V‑8/K Application dismissed.