2010 PLP 744 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ADNAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus DR. BASHIR AHMED — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 744 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ADNAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus DR. BASHIR AHMED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 744 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 744 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 744 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ADNAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus DR. BASHIR AHMED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Shah Abbas for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2
Suit for specific performance of contract
Application for temporary injunction
Plaintiff was in possession of the property in dispute and agreement to sell placed on record, had clearly shown that the entire payment had been made
When the possession of the property in dispute was with the plaintiff, a prima facie case certainly had been made out and the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss in case he was dispossessed
Balance of convenience also lay in his favour
No jurisdictional error had been demonstrated to invite the revisional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.
This petition is directed against the order dated 27-2-2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Okara, and the order dated 23-5-2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Okara granting the stay order to the respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case, as submitted in the plaint, are that the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 23-5-2005 against the petitioners stating therein that petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were minors and petitioner No.3 was their guardian appointed by the Court. It was further submitted that petitioner No.3 being guardian of petitioners Nos.1 and 2, executed an agreement to sell dated 23-5-2002 with regard to the property in dispute in favour of the respondent.
3. Along with the suit, an application under order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 was also filed for restraining the petitioners/defendants from dispossessing the respondent/plaintiff. This application was accepted by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court upheld the stay order.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel of the petitioners that the agreement to sell was not executed by the petitioners. It is also contended that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 minors at that time and petitioner No.3 had not been appointed as their guardian.
5. I have heard the learned counsel of the petitioners and perused the record.
6. The major point which has been considered by the lower Courts is that the respondent is in possession of the property in dispute and agreement to sell placed on the record clearly shows that the entire payment has been made. In this view of the matter, when the possession of the property in dispute is with the respondent, a prima facie case certainly has been made out and the respondent shall suffer an irreparable loss in case he is dispossessed. Balance of convenience also lies in his favour.
7. Besides, no jurisdictional error has been demonstrated to invite the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. In sequel thereof the instant petition being is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. H.B.T./M-553/L Petition dismissed.