193 3 C L C 576 (PLP)
HASHMA'T BIBI- AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus NAZIRAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 193 3 C L C 576 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Baghdad-ul-jadid |
| Bench Members | S. A. Mahmood, J |
| Parties | HASHMA'T BIBI- AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus NAZIRAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1'908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 193 3 C L C 576 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1'908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 193 3 C L C 576 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Baghdad-ul-jadid bench comprising: S. A. Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 193 3 C L C 576 (PLP) (HASHMA'T BIBI- AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus NAZIRAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fozal Karim Chishty for Petitioners.
- M. A. Afsoon for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-Interim injunction-Petitioner in actual possession of suit land-Parties agreeing to maintain status quo during penlency of proceedings subject to furnishing security for mesne profits-Orders passed by High Court accordingly. [Injunction].
Judgment & Decree
O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-Interim injunction-Petitioner in actual possession of suit land-Parties agreeing to maintain status quo during penlency of proceedings subject to furnishing security for mesne profits-Orders passed by High Court accordingly. [Injunction]. Fozal Karim Chishty for Petitioners. M. A. Afsoon for Respondents. Muhammad Bakhsh deceased left two squares of land in Chal No, 69/4-R,Tehssl Fort Abbas, District Bahawalnagar. After his death, the, land was mutated on the 23rd of August, 1`761, in favour of his widow, Mst. Hashmat Bibi, his son Manzoor Ahmad, arid his daughters, Mst. Shamim Akhtar, Nargis Begum and Mst. Mussarat Begum, who are minors on the 13th of September, 1961, they instituted a suit in the court of Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawainagar, for a declaration that they were the sole heirs of Haji Muhammad Bakhsh deceased, that Naziran and Mst. Bashiran were not his daughters and had no right or interest in the land left by him and for consequential injunctions restraining them from interfering with their possession. Simultaneously they filed an application for temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their possession of the land. . Notice of this application was given to the respondents. The application was dismissed on the 9th of Novem ber, 1961 on the ground that during the pendency of the suit on the application that the plaintiffs had brought about a change in the Khasra Girdawari entries for Kharif 1961. This is a revision by Mst. Hashmat Bibi and his minor son and daughters against refusing to issue the temporary injunction prayed for.
2. The facts admitted before me are that 1 J squares of the disputed land had been leased out by the plaintiffs to Khair Din and others and that the remaining half was in cultivating possession of tenants. The defendant-respondents applied to the Naib-Tehsildar, Haroonabad, for an order that the tenants be directed to pay batai to them. The Naib-Tehsildar passed an order, accordingly upon which they obtained landlord's share of the produce from the tenants for Kharif 1961. The order has since been set aside by the Tehsildar. The order passed by the Naib-Tehsildar directing the tenants to pay batai to the respon dents does not appear to have been passed under any law and was not competent. In the circumstances of the case a temporary injunction for maintenance of status quo may well have been made in this case. The plaintiffs were in fact in actual possession of the suit land.
3. The learned counsel for the parties now agree before me that status quo shall be maintained during the pendency of the proceedings subject to the plaintiff's furnishing security for mesne profits in the' sum of Rs. 1,000 per year to be paid to the defendants in case the A suit fails. I order accordingly. The necessary security shall be furnish ed to the satisfaction of the trial Court within fifteen days. The parties bear their own costs. M. Y. H. Order accordingly.