Refusal of injunction

Plaintiff assailed notices issued by Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to Habib Bank Limited in furtherance of inquiry that certain immovable properties of someone had been fraudulently offered by two persons to various banks for obtaining loans against said properties in favour of plaintiff's company

Validity

Defendants were officers of FIA established under Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 and were fully competent to inquire into fraud committed by different persons in obtaining loans from banking institutions

One of the defendants was posted in commercial banks' circle and it was within the purview of his duty to inquire into and investigate complaint registered, numbered and marked to him in terms of S.5 of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974

Remedy was quashment, if made out and not simple declaration and decree prohibiting public functionaries from performing their duties within the four corners of law

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of suit land and alleged that defendants being stranger should be restrained from claiming themselves as owners of suit land

Validity

Co-sharer in possession of suit property even on entire Khasra number in cultivation column would be deemed to have joined the same right and privilege to which other co-owners were entitled

Plaintiff could not claim that she was on better pedestal as compared to other co-owners because all co-owners had right to occupy their possession till the time partition was taken place by its metes and bounds

Defendants were co-owners in property in dispute, no restraint could be imposed on their rights to transfer their shares

None of the parties was supposed to interfere with each other's possession, till they along with other joint property in possession of other co-owners were partitioned by metes and bounds

Both the courts below had rightly dismissed suit and appeal filed by plaintiff and the judgments were free from misreading or non- reading of evidence and the same were not open to any exception

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction maintained judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.