Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 85 of 1970, decided on 22nd April 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 5th March 1970, in Civil Revision No. 311 of 1969).
O. XXXIX, r. 1---- Temporary injunction‑Granted by Appellate Court in declaratory suit holding that respondents were in joint possession and same should not be interfered with‑Contention that Appellate Court by holding respondents in joint possession finally decided suit‑High Court in revision observing that observation of Appellate Court can not be understood as finally determining question of possession which awaited decision by trial Court after recording entire evidence in case‑Grievance that Appellate Court had finally decided suit, held, not well founded in presence of such remarks‑Petition for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court dismissed.
Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd April 1970.
‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 311 of 1969, dated the 5th March 1970. By this order the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed with costs.
The petitioners and the respondents are the sons/daughters of late Ahmad Hassan, a Zamindar of Mauza Sehar, Tehsil Mailsi in the Multan District. After the death of their father, the landed property owned by the deceased in the said district devolved on the heirs in accordance with Shariat Law and mutation was sanctioned in due course of time. Subsequently, it is alleged that the respondents sold away their share of the landed property to the petitioners for consideration of Rs. 70,000 under a registered sale deed dated the 30th April 1966, and a sum of Rs. 69,000 was paid to them in the presence of Sub‑Registrar, Multan.
Respondents challenged this sale in suit for declaration filed on the 22nd July 1967, at Multan on the allegation that the registered sale deed was fictitious, without consideration and forged one. They sought a declaration that the deed was void and inoperative and prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from being shown as the owners of the suit land. Along with the suit, respondents also applied for temporary injunction. It was prayed that the petitioners be restrained from alienating the land in dispute. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the 20th of November 1968. In appeal, the District Judge, Multan, by order dated the 29th April 1969 granted the respondents temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. The learned District Judge held that the respondents were in joint possession and the same should not be interfered with. It was in these circumstances that the petitioners took the matter in revision before the High Court. The High Court has upheld the order of the learned District Judge and dismissed the revision. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
The main grievance of the petitioners is that the learned District Judge by holding that the respondents are in join possession of the property in dispute has finally decided the suit between the parties. The apprehension of the petitioners is not well founded. The High Court has already observed that the question will be decided by the trial Court after recording the entire evidence in the case. In this connection the High Court observed as under :‑
"The observations made in this regard have to be understood in relation to the assessment of the learned District Judge as to whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and the observa tions made in this connection cannot be understood as finally determining the question of possession, which matter has still to be decided by the learned trial Judge after recording the entire evidence in the case."
In the presence of these remarks it is quite clear that the apprehension of the petitioners is not well founded. We are satisfied that the High Court has approached the question before it in accordance with law. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer