Suit for injunction
Suit for injunction legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Appellant assailed order passed by Intellectual Property Tribunal, whereby it declared that filing of second suit was not hit by the bar contained in O.XXIII R.1(3), C.P.C.
Validity
One of the common principles engrafted in O. II, as well as O. XXIII, C.P.C. is that unless the Court is satisfied as to the reasons given in relevant rules of the two Orders, defendants should not be subjected to more than one suits for same cause
In O.II, R.2, C.P.C., the Legislature has used words where a plaintiff omits to sue… shall not afterwards sue
Likewise, in O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. states that a person if entitled to more than one relief may sue for all or any of such relief, but if omits, except with the leave of the Court….he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted
Word "afterwards", in O. II, R. 2 C.P.C. is not used with reference to decision of cases and is used with regard to the word "sue"
When pendency of earlier suit is disclosed, the Court can control the situation by taking an action, at the earliest
When it comes to the surface that filing of earlier suit is not disclosed in the subsequent suit, the Trial Courts are sufficiently empowered to curb and regulate such situation on account of non-disclosure of information
High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Tribunal, which had adopted the correct approach in the matter
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Respondents/plaintiffs were aggrieved of acquisition proceedings and sought permanent injunction against petitioner/Lahore Development Authority
Both the Courts below concurrently decided suit and appeal in favour of respondents/plaintiffs
Validity
Respondents/plaintiffs simply claimed permanent injunction which could be granted only if there were admitted rights either under a contract or under the statute, which were being violated
Respondents/plaintiffs failed to produce any proof of having been allowed adjustment of 06 Kanal and 13 Marla of residential unit and also failed to produce any record of adjustment
Respondents/plaintiffs could not simply sue for injunctive relief, particularly when such claim was disputed
Without seeking declaration of ownership of residential unit under sanction/approval of competent authority, suit for permanent injunction simpliciter was not maintainable
Land had been acquired, award was announced and Acquiring Authority or Land Acquisition Collector was to proceed with performance of statutory duties of taking over possession by removing encroachments for delivery of possession to persons who were entitled to have the same
No injunction could be granted to interfere with the performance of public duties of any department of Federal or Provincial Government in view of the bar under S. 56(d) of Specific Relief Act, 1877
Respondents/plaintiff did not produce exemption record nor any material or document was produced in evidence to prove that property was exempted/adjusted under Adjustment Policy, after compliance of legal formalities regarding pre-requisite for adjustment/exemption
Respondents/plaintiffs could not be granted any relief of injunction to restrain petitioners/Lahore Development Authority from performing their statutory duties
High Court set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as misreading and non-reading of oral as well as documentary evidence was made by the Courts below resulting into incorrect conclusions
High Court set aside judgment and decrees passed by two Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs as there was no admissible evidence to prove right of adjustment, application for its approval by competent authority, and compliance of preconditions for adjustment and payment of requisite charges for excess area
Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Plaintiff was Cooperative Housing Society and was aggrieved of letter causing interference and obstruction by authorities with regard to land in possession of Society and its members
Validity
Provincial Government, Board of Revenue and other defendants failed to produce any documentary evidence and also failed to deny documents produced by plaintiff including indentures of leases
Neither defendants had challenged lease nor sought any cancellation
Defendants did not set into motion any independent proceedings for their alleged claim nor claimed any set of in present proceedings
Defendants did not take up matter with Federal Government nor denied transaction through which Karachi Development Authority acquired land from Karachi Port Trust for Karachi Development Authority Scheme
Defendants did not deny indenture signed between Karachi Port Trust and United States of America for leasehold rights of plots measuring 82,836 square meters
Authorities did not deny letter of the then Chief Minister of the province conveyed to the then Prime Minister in which Chief Minister suggested that area of 75 acres of Chinna Creek might be acquired and land fell within jurisdiction of Karachi Port Trust which was to be got transferred for purposes of better utilization and development of city to Provincial Government
Letter in question issued by the authorities was without lawful authority and had no legal effect
No illegality was noticed in lease documents executed by Karachi Port Trust in favour of plaintiff for land in question after proper approval of Board and Federal Government
Suit was decreed in circumstances.
Petitioner/plaintiff contended that Trial Court had not recalled ad-interim injunction granted by it on merits but on non-compliance of court's orders, to argue the matter
Respondent/defendant contended that ad-interim injunction was rightly recalled by the court as delaying tactics were continuously applied by the plaintiff
Validity
Once Trial Court had granted ad-interim injunction, it would be inappropriate to recall the same without giving any reasons, particularly, when the written statement and other documents were available before the court
Contumacious conduct of the counsel for the petitioner could not be overlooked, however, that did not absolve the Trial Court to decide the matter in accordance with law
Order passed in haste or which lacked reasons was deprecated
High Court observed that jurisdiction vested even in executive authority or quasi judicial authority had to be exercised reasonably and with reasons, hence, the judicial officers were expected to be more cautious and always must apply judicial mind while adjudicating upon any matter
Trial Court had erred by recalling the order of injunction without recording the reasons though respondents/defendants had rightly filed the application under O. XXXIX, R. 4, C.P.C. for vacating the stay order
Where the court had granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction and the defendant felt that the said order had caused great hardship or inconvenience to him, the remedy lay in filing application under O. XXXIX, R. 4, C.P.C.; however it was incumbent upon the court while deciding such application to pass a judicial and well-reasoned order on the said application
High Court while directing the parties to maintain status quo set aside the impugned orders of both the courts below
Application of respondent/defendant under O. XXXIX, R. 4, C.P.C. would be deemed pending and the Trial Court would decide the application strictly in accordance with law
Revision petition was accepted with costs.
Plaintiff claimed to be owner of registered trademark of 'Hilal Khopra Candy Sweets' which was also registered under Copyrights Ordinance, 1962
Plaintiff alleged that 'Haroon Khopra Candy Sweets' was identical in packaging, label/wrapper and defendants infringing plaintiff's trademarks rights and also passing off their goods as goods of plaintiff
Trial Court dismissed the suit
Validity
Appearance of number of infringements/imitations of trademarks of wrapper, colour scheme, design or getup in marketplace would not give justification for an infringer/imitator to claim that trademark of original proprietary had lost its propriety status and that due to such reason, imitator/infringer of such trademark or label or wrapper was entitled to continue with its imitation and infringement
When question had arisen whether a mark applied for, had such resemblance to another mark likely to deceive, it should be determined by considering what was leading characteristic of each
One could contain many, even most of same elements, as other and yet leading, or it may be only impression left on mind, might be very different
Critical comparison of two marks might disclose numerous points of difference yet idea which would remain with any person seeing them apart at different times could be same
Mark was infringed if essential features or essentials particulars of same were taken
Colour scheme, design and getup of label/wrapper of defendant was deceptively and confusingly similar or nearly resembled colour scheme, design and getup of label/wrapper of plaintiff and was likely to cause confusion and deception to an unwary purchaser
High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and decreed suit in favour of plaintiff
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Act of raising any construction over a public lane was contrary to Quranic Injunctions and examples and sayings of the Holy Prophet (May Peace Be Upon Him)
Civic body holding title of any property had authority to alter, change and adjust the same in larger interest of public
Size of public street was 25' wide out of which an area measuring 13'x135' was encroached upon for construction of shops etc.
Intervener purchased a commercial plot in open auction and had approved siteplan and demarcation report
Any person who had purchased plot from Development Authority by paying almost Rs.9 crores could not be deprived of passage of 25' wide lane on one side of his plot, therefore, stance of plaintiffs was feeble and without plausible justification
Lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate pleadings, evidence and conduct of parties, misreading and non-reading of evidence was visible, application of judicial mind lacked and facts were misconstrued
High Court directed the Development Authority to place matter before its Board in order to evolve a proper procedure for management of affairs of mosque
Possession with permission to raise construction for Masjid must not be handed over to any person without evolving a prescribed procedure and final approval by the Board
Plot allocated for Masjid did not mean that whosoever had started construction, same would be presumed to be allotted to that person
High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed
Revision was allowed in circumstances.
Plaintiff company was using registered trademark 'Shaukat' for its products (soap) whereas defendant company in the same category of goods started using trademark 'Crystal Shaukat'
Trial Court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of plaintiff
Validity
Defendant had dishonestly adopted trademark 'Shaukat' which was the registered trademark of plaintiff
Defendant's addition of word 'Crystal' before the word 'Shaukat' to make it 'Crystal Shaukat' had no bearing or consequences and did not protect it from being liable for infringement of registered trademark 'Shaukat Soap'
Such was as the public might assume that 'Crystal Shaukat' was yet another product of the same party which was selling products under the trademarks 'Shaukat Soap' or was another quality or range of product and/or manufactured under permission or authorization of the owners of the registered trademark 'Shaukat Soap', which was being sold in Pakistan for decades
High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court and restrained defendant from using word 'Shaukat' as trademark either alone or along with the word 'Crystal' or in conjunction with any other word or device along with a wrapper of soap which was yellow and black in colour scheme, design and getup and depicted the portrait of their predecessor in the same place and position as that of plaintiff till the decision of main suit
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Plaintiff claimed his possession over suit land and sought injunction against owners of land from entering into their land and against revenue authorities from performing their lawful duties
Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by plaintiff
Validity
Revenue officer could not be stopped from performing his legal obligation and suit filed by plaintiff was hit by provisions of S.172 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967
By abolition of Art.144 and S.28 of Limitation Act, 1908, encroacher or trespasser could not have laid a claim on the basis of illegal possession and suit filed by plaintiff was not competent and appeal was rightly dismissed by Lower Appellate Court
Plaintiff could not seek declaration against defendants as revenue record had confirmed the fact that they were in possession and were joint owners, therefore, they had rightly requested competent Revenue officer for demarcation
Owner could not permanently be restrained from entering the premises, ownership whereof vested in him
No misreading or non-reading of evidence nor any defect in judgments and decrees rendered by two Courts below were found on proper appraisal of material on records
High Court, therefore, declined to interfere as there was no impropriety, perversity, irregularity or infirmity in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
According to Art.212 of the Constitution, administrative courts and tribunals had been established having exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the matter relating to terms and conditions of persons who are in service of Pakistan
Article 212(2) of the Constitution commanded that no court or tribunal shall grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceeding in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction to such court or tribunal extended
Khyber Pakhthunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, 1974 was enforced to deal with the matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants
Provincial Government had established Service Tribunal to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to terms and conditions of civil servants
Service Tribunal had the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to terms and conditions of service of civil servants
Both the courts below had fallen in error by assuming jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon, in circumstances
Judgment and decree passed by both the courts below was set aside
Revision petition was accepted.
Suit of plaintiff was fixed for arguments on application for grant of temporary injunction but Trial Court proceeded to reject the plaint
Validity
Trial Court erred in law in having done so, as the suit of plaintiff was not only confined to infringement of trade mark but also alleged passing off which necessarily entailed detailed inquiry and recording of evidence, therefore, plaint could not have been rejected
High Court set aside order rejecting the plaint and remanded the case to Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Plaintiff sought injunction against defendant from restraining him to use trade mark MASACOL registered in its name of the plea of deception and similarity
Validity
Trade mark MASACOL was a registered trade mark of defendant and plaintiff without seeking declaration or its cancellation was simply seeking injunction
Plaintiff could not place any material on record to deny claim of defendant that after import of last consignment in year, 2009, Government had declined permission to grant license for import of product of plaintiff which had not been available in Pakistan for the last two years
Product MASACOL was being sold in market since middle of year, 2010 and there was no justification on record as to why plaintiff had brought action against defendant after a delay of almost 18 months, especially when plaintiff claimed that defendant was his agent in Pakistan for sale of his product which was not imported after expiry of its license in year, 2009
Claim of plaintiff as to infringement of their trade mark by defendant through its registered trade mark MASACOL, on the plea of similarity could not be determined unless plaintiff would succeed in rectifying register of trade marks in respect of its product and till then plaintiff was not entitled to injunction
Balance of inconvenience tilted in favour of defendant on account of admitted position that plaintiff's product was out of market and defendant's claim to have captured sizable market was in record
High Court declined to issue interim injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendant from selling product under the name of MASACOL
Application was dismissed in circumstances.
Defendants sought stay of proceedings before Court referring the same to arbitration in terms of arbitration mechanism agreed between the parties
Validity
Pre-condition for refusing stay of proceedings was that arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed
Words null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed should be read keeping in view rule of ejesdem generis i.e. when a particular word pertaining to class, category or genus or followed by general words, the general words were construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified
plaintiff failed to point out from record that arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed
Application for stay of suit could not be rejected as arbitration agreement could be refused to a party to arbitration agreement unless court had found the same as null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed
Plaintiff failed to bring case within the exceptions provided under S.4(2) of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Ordinance, 2009 or Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, so as to refuse to stay the proceedings
High Court directed to refer disputes between parties to arbitration in terms of arbitration clause stated in agreement and stayed proceedings before court
Application was allowed in circumstances.
Plaintiff claimed to have suit property mortgaged in his favour by defendant and sought execution of documents in his favour
Defendant contended that unregistered mortgage deed relied upon by plaintiff was a forged document
Validity
Mortgage deed besides being forged and fabricated was without any consideration and the same being unregistered document did not create any right or interest in favour of plaintiff vis-a-vis suit property
In cases filed by defendant and contested by plaintiff up to Supreme Court relationship between plaintiff and defendant was proved to be that of tenant and landlord
in said cases main defence taken by plaintiff was that demise premises/suit property was mortgaged with him and he was holding possession thereof in his capacity as a mortgagee and not as tenant, which stand could not be proved in that cases
Findings on relationship of plaintiff and defendant had already attained finality and doctrine of res judicata was also attracted
Plaintiff could not prove his case and was not entitled to any relief as claimed by him
Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
"Suit for injunction", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939674
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Suit for injunction"
2020 M L D 1718
and another — Applicants Versus MUHAMMAD AZEEM and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)1995SCMR920
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2024 C L C 699
FAZAL KARIM and 2 others — Petitioners Versus MEHBOOB KHAN (Deceased) through his Legal Heirs — Respondent
Court: Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)2004 S C M R 113
RIFFAT MASOOD — Petitioner Versus CANTONMENT BOARD OF SIALKOT and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1978 Lahore 842
QUAIM DIN-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB-Respondent
Court: -- O. XXIII, r. I(3)-Withdrawal of suit-Appellant's suit for perpetual injunction restraining respondent from interfering with possession of appellant over property in dispute withdrawn by appellant on respondent's making a statement in Court that he would not misappropriate property-Another suit subsequently brought by appellant claiming perpetual injunction against respondent in respect of same property on ground of fresh cause of action having arisen due to denial of appellant's title to property by respondent-Respondent also alleged to have made a statement in previous suit that in case of violation of his statement appellant would be entitled to bring a suit against him while respondent's statement being only this that he would not misappropriate property-Held: Appellant may be entitled to bring another suit if respondent does any act giving fresh cause of action but no such eventuality occurred-Respondent if making any attempt to interfere with appellant's possession could be proceeded for contempt of Court-Fact of no decree having been passed in previous suit and no injunction having been issued against respondent-Makes so difference-No difference between an injunction and statement of party binding himself not to do an act for whose prevention suit brought against such party-No new cause of action having arisen suit barred by O. XXIII, r. 1(3).-Injunction.1988 C L C 1269
and 4 others‑‑Plaintiffs Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court: Karachi2022 Y L R 2491
ZIA-UL-HAQ and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and 13 others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1987 Karachi 676
NIZAR ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus NOORABAD COOPERATIVE HOUSING
Court:2003 Y L R 24
SAIFUDDIN SIDDIQUI‑‑‑Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑‑Respondent
Court: KarachiP L D 1995 Supreme Court 462
Haji SHAHJAHAN KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AURANG ZEB KHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: