Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑3 of 1972, decided on 9th February 1972.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 5th January 1972, in L. P. A. No, 209 of 1971),

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),

O. XXXIX, r. 1‑Injunction temporary‑Balance of convenience in favour of defendant and no irreparable injury likely to be caused to plaintiff‑Court, held, justified in refining to issue temporary injunction.

Fatehali W. Vellani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 9th February 1972.

The Deputy Commissioner, Karachi, is reviewing the order of his predecessor dated the 1st April 1965 giving no‑objection to the entry of the names of Mst. Nabat Khanu daughter of Saleh Mohammad and Mohammad son of Bana, in the register of Haq Qabza in respect of an area of 1280 acres of land in Deli Lal Bakhar (un-surveyed) owned and possessed by them. The proceedings are at the stage of recording evidence. The petitioners have filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the above mentioned land. They have prayed that the Deputy Commis sioner be restrained from continuing with the proceedings. Along with the suit, the petitioners filed an application for injunction under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C. to restrain the Deputy Commissioner from exercising his suo motu power of review. This application was rejected. The petitioners challenged this order in L. P. A. No. 209 of 1971, which was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind& Baluchistan, Karachi, on the 5th January 1972. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against this order.

Mr. Fatehali Vellani, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the dispute in respect of which the Deputy Commissioner is holding enquiry is the subject‑matter of civil suit and, therefore, it is a fit case in which he should be restrained from reviewing the order of his predecessor till the decision of the suit. The learned counsel admitted that the Deputy Commis sioner has a statutory right to review the order of his learned pre decessor. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the Court below has rightly refused to issue temporary injunction to the Deputy Commissioner. Balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents. Even if the Deputy Commissioner passes an adverse order against the petitioners they can challenge it in civil suit. No irreparable injury will be caused to the petitioners in case the Deputy Commissioner reviews the order of his learned predecessor. We .are satisfied that the High Court has exercised the discretion vested in it properly. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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