Suit for perpetual injunction

2025 CLC 933 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 54Suit for perpetual injunctionDisputeDocumentary evidenceWrong mutation entry subsequently rectified

Claim of the plaintiffs was that the suit-land was purchased by their father from defendants vide sale deed in the year 1965; which land was in their possession and they had constructed houses thereupon but defendants were flexing their muscles to interfere into their peaceful possession in the garb of wrong entries in the revenue record

Plea of the defendants was that the sale-deed-in-question had been tampered as instead of 4 kanals and 9 marlas of land, 4 kanals and 19 marlas had been entered

Suit was concurrently decreed in favour of plaintiffs

Validity

Record revealed that the plaintiffs placed on record an original sale-deed dated 17.04.1965 having been tendered/exhibited in evidence which, inter alia, revealed that total 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land had been purchased and relevant mutation (No. 210) was also attested but inadvertently the acreage of purchased land in the mutation was entered as 4 kanals and 9 marlas; however , in the recent settlement, the entries in the revenue record had been corrected and total purchased land, was entered as 4 kanals and 19 marlas

Defendants had not denied the sale deed dated 17.04.1965 but their stance was that the sale deed had been tampered by the defendants however, no tampering had been found rather controversy created between the parties was only due to the wrong entry in mutation No. 210 which had been rectified subsequently during the recent settlement but defendants in garb of said wrong entry in mutation No.210 tried to take possession of land which had already been sold by their predecessors to the father of plaintiffs

As the plaintiffs had proved their stance that vide sale deed dated 17.04.1965 their father purchased 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land, they were in possession of the purchased land and defendants had no concern with the same land, thus the Courts below accurately decreed the suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents for perpetual injunction

No misreading, non-reading had been noticed in concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below

Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 PLD 78 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 47, 115 & O.XXI, R.32Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54Suit for perpetual injunctionExecution of decreeRestoration of possession and removal of encroachmentExecuting Court, powers of

Respondents/decree holders were aggrieved of their dispossession and encroachment made by petitioners/judgment debtors over suit property

Held, that where holder of decree for injunction was dispossessed by judgment debtor or his possession was interfered with by encroachment or otherwise, the holder of such decree could apply to Executing Court for restoration of his possession or removal of encroachment from suit land

Such decree holder could not be asked to go and institute a fresh suit for restoration of possession etc.

Trial Court, Lower Appellate Court and High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction held that respondents/decree holders were in possession of suit land

Petitioners/judgment debtors dumped construction material upon suit land of respondents/decree holders and Executing Court had rightly directed for removal of the same

Decree of injunction was not just a piece of paper, rather had same legal force and effect as any other decree

Decree holder of an injunctive decree, if dispossessed by judgment debtor could have applied to the Court on the strength of same decree for restoration of his position under S. 151, C.P.C., which provision could also be pressed into service for restoration of possession of a decree holder of perpetual injunction

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent orders passed by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2016 CLC 21 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XV, Rr.1, 3Suit for perpetual injunctionSelection of site for construction of building of schoolBoth, the Trial Court and Appellate Court below had passed two different ordersTrial Court by an order appointed an Engineer for site selection of the building of school in question

Appellate Court, instead of passing any order on the merits or otherwise, passed a quite different order on the sole ground that contesting parties to the case, were not at issue

Contesting party, in the case, was the Government, and not the residents of the two villages

Government, was implementing a scheme of construction of a school building in either of two villages

People of the said two villages were disputing the said construction and had filed suit

Question involved in the case, was not a question of any civil right of either of the parties, but was a scheme for construction of a school building in either of the villages

Government had discretion to construct school building in either of the two villages, or anywhere else

Trial Court or Appellate Court, had no power to interfere in the working of Government

Trial Court, in circumstances, had very wrongly appointed a Commission for the site selection of the school building in question

Appellate Court, decreed the suit baselessly

Appellate Court, had wrongly found that parties were not at issue

Chief Court observed that courts were bound to pass legal orders according to the circumstances of each case, where contesting parties were not at issue

Suit filed by the plaintiff was incompetent

Government, which was contesting respondent had not infringed any civil right of the petitioners of the respondents

Both the orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, were set aside

Suit stood dismissed.

2014 GBLR 158 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2Suit for perpetual injunctionTemporary injunction, refusal of

Petitioner/plaintiff sought perpetual injunction against the respondents by restraining them from interfering into the disputed property perpetually

Trial Court, Appellate Court below and Chief Court, refused to grant the temporary injunction as prayed for by the petitioner

Validity

Petitioner sought to restrain the respondents, till final disposal of the suit from using a path over the ancestral property, adjacent to the disputed property

Plaintiff had sought an order to the effect that respondents be restrained from trespassing his ancestral property

Petitioner, in fact, intended to prevent the respondents from using her ancestral property as path to the "subject matter" of the suit

Petitioner, had lost sight of the fact that the ancestral property or the path over the same, had not been made "subject matter" in the suit

Possession over the suit land was disputed, which was yet to be proved through cogent and reliable testimony of the witnesses in that regard

Order XXXIX, Rr.1, 2, C.P.C., spoke about the "subject matter" of a suit and gave discretion to the courts to pass temporary orders during pendency of suits, if court was convinced that the subject matter of the suit was in danger of being wasted/damaged or alienated by any party to the suit

Courts had no power to grant temporary injunction in respect of any property which was not "subject matter of the suit"

Petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case to get temporary injunction against the respondents

Other two ingredients i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the subject matter of the suit which were prerequisite for grant of temporary injunction had also not been established

Petition not carrying any substance to grant leave to appeal, was dismissed, and leave was refused.