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 N 76‑R of 1975 decided on 26th November 1975.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated the 23rd of February 1975, in Civil Revisions No. 185 of 1975).
---S. 13 read with Cavil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O XXXIX r. 1 and Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 34‑Contention that petitioner having all along continued in possession of disputed house and ejectment order having bees passed only against her son, petitioner not bound by order and entitled to protection under S. 34‑‑Petitioner's claim to allotment of how successively failing in appeal revision and writ petitions and such orders gaining finality‑‑Contention never raised before Rent Controller‑‑Son having lived in same house with petitions: not likely for her to be ignorant of ejectment proceedings against her son‑‑Order of High Court also showing bar not to be it possession of house‑‑‑‑Courts below, held, right in refusing to VVAI temporary injunction to petitioner against ejectment order [Injunction].
Ahmad Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Aslam for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 26th November 1975.
The is petitioner claim that the house in question had been in possession of her husband Mir Ghulam Rasool who sins an allottee and who died in the year 1953. After the commencement of the Settlement Operations she obtained transfer of the house upon her C. P. Form. It appears that the respondents who are also claimants had earlier filed C. H. Form for transfer of the same house, and it was transferred to them in tae year 1959. Since then first a Provisional Transfer Order and then a Permanent Transfer Deed were issued to the respondents. It may be stated here that as a result of the order of the High Court dated the 17th of April, 1972, passed in Writ Petition Nos. 407/R, 693/R, 695/R and 762/R of 1965 mad 184/R of 1968 the house in dispute finally stood transferred to the respondents.
The respondents filed an ejectment application against Mir Ghulam Rabbani who appeared to have secured possession of the house on the death of his father Mir Ghulam Rasul. An order for ejectment was passed on the 27th of July, 1964, and no further proceedings having been taken from this order, it became final. The petitioner thereafter filed a belated revision before the Settlement Commissioner from the order of transfer made in favour of the respondents and it was dismissed. The petitioner's second revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner as well as his Writ Petition No. 407/R of 190 were also dismissed. A petition for special leave was also dismissed by this Court.
The petitioner, thereafter, filed a suit in the year 1974 for a declaration that the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller on the 27th of July, 1964, was not binding upon her and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the building. She also applied for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from putting the order of ejectment into execution. The trial Court refused to give the temporary injunction and the District Judge as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court in revision also refused to give the temporary injunction asked for. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
Syed Riaz Ahmad Pirzada, warmed Advocate appearing in support of the petition has failed to point out any flaw in the orders refusing to grant the temporary injunction. He sought to contend that the petitioner has all along continued to be in possession of the property in dispute and the ejectment order having been passed only against her son, Ghulam Rabbani she wad not bound by the order and that she was entitled to protection under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It does not appear that those contention were raised before the Rent Controller. She could not be ignorant of the ejectment proceedings against tier own son living in the house. Beside the aforesaid order of the High Court dated the 17th of April, 1972 showed that she was not in possession of any portion of the property in disputes.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we think that the Courts including the High Court rightly refused to grant the temporary injunction to the petitioner.
The petition is accordingly, dismissed,
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer