Find a Lawyer

C.P. S. L. A. No. 560 of 1977, decided on 19th February 1978.

(On appeal from the order dated 20‑6‑1977 passed by the Lahore. High Court in Civil Revision No. 476 of 1977)

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Additional District Judge and High Court concurrently finding petitioner having no prima facie case so as to be entitled to issuance of injunction in his favour‑Perusal of record confirming such conclusion‑Leave to appeal refused‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. 1 and 2.‑[injunction].

M. G. Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Majid Hussain. Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent

.‑This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order dated 20‑6‑1977 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Civil Revision No. 476 of 1977, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed in limine.

2. The relevant, facts are that the petitioner brought a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of 1/6th portion of certain immovable property situated in Sahiwal. According to him, Rs. 600 had been paid out of the total consideration of Rs. 16,000 fixed as the sale price, and a registered deed was executed in this behalf.

3. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner made an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C., for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from selling the property and also from dispossessing the petitioner. The trial Court granted the application and issued the temporary injunction asked for. The respondent went in appeal against the said order which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, and accepted by him with the result that the temporary injunction was vacated.

4. The petitioner then went up in revision before the Lahore High. Court and the learned Judge held that there was no stipulation in the agree ment that the possession of the petitioner will not, in the future, be transferred, nor did it show that the petitioner was in occupation of the property on account of his own right as transferee. On the other hand, the property was, in fact, in occupation of the father and the uncle of the petitioner as tenants. It was further observed that even if the petitioner was deemed to be a tenant, it would not make any difference because he could be ejected by the Rent Controller if there were grounds for doing so. It was finally observed that if the petitioner was ejected and ultimately succeeded in the suit, he could be again put in possession under the decree.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, before us, are used that the petitioner was in possession of the property as a vendee and the balance of convenience lay in protecting his possession instead of allowing him to be ejected and then again put in possession, in the event of success of his suit.

6. According to the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge and the High Court, it has been found that the petitioner has no prima facie case and consequently was not entitled to the issuance of an injunction in his favour. On perusing the available record we concur with this conclusion and see no reason to interfere. This petition must fail and is accordingly 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.