Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑57 of 1970, decided on 19th August 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 16th March 1970, in Civil Revision Application No. 42 of 1969).

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),

O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2 Injunction, ad interim‑Land in dispute allotted to respondent and respondent raising construction over it‑Order of allotment challenged as having been made in respect of property belonging to petitioner-Interim injunction against respondent during pendency of litigation, in circumstances, held, not issued in improper exercise of discretion‑Petition dismissed.

Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mohammad Ibrahim Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Peti tioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 19th August 1970.

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑

The dispute between the parties is in respect of plot of land No. 8 situated in the town of Kotri Mohammad Kabir which was granted to respondent No. 1 by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal before the Commissioner and the same was set aside. The revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. He then filed Civil Suit No. 119 of 1968 against respondent No. 1 for declaration that the property in dispute belongs to the Government. Along with the suit he also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. for interim injunction. This application was dismissed by the trial Court. In appeal, however, the learned District Judge, Nawab shah, issued an injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order in Civil Revision Application No. 482, 1968, before the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench which was dismissed on the 16th March 1970. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.

In support of the petition, Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the property in dispute belongs to the petitioner and, therefore, respon dent No. 1 has not acquired any right or title in it. The learned counsel, however, did not dispute that the land in dispute was allotted to the respondent No. 1 by the Deputy Commissioner and he has raised construction over it. In these circumstances, it is not possible for us to hold that the learned District Judge has exercised the discretion vested in him improperly. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.

Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.