HAJI AHMED versus R. G. SEHWANI, COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY

O XLI, r 5 Setting Up the Work of the Order High Court submits the ad interim order under A XXXXX, R 2, CPC, preventing the appellant / defendants from constructing more than two floors (ground plus one). Prevent it from skipping or separating. Occupation of shops that have already been built up to the suit decision have not yet begun construction work on the proposed third floor. Appellants do not intend to lay the proposed third floor in any use. Appellants should not take up more than two storey buildings. Promise Appeal Reason: This Cost May Appeal and Defendants Finalized by Appeals / Defendants, however, Respondents / Plaintiffs have already filed a lawsuit against Defendants Have failed to sue for the execution of the order while approving the appeals; D can not be reinforced. In a better position than when ordering a suit in the suit

1981 C L C 897

[Karachi]

Before Abdul Hayee Kureshi, C. J. and Ajmal Mian, J

HAJI AHMED AND 2 OTHERS‑Appellants

versus

R. G. SEHWANI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY

LTD. AND ANOTHER ‑Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 2254, 2352 and 2356 of 1980 and High Court Appeal Nos, 43, 44 and 45 of 1980, decided on 14th September, 1980.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑

‑‑--O. XLI, r. 5‑Stay of operation of order‑High Court granting ad interim injunction under O. XXXIX, r. 2, C. P C., restraining appellants/defendants from constructing more than two storeys (ground plus one) and also restraining them for letting out or parting with possession of shops already constructed till decision of suit‑Construction work on proposed third floor not yet commenced‑Appellants not intending to put proposed third floor to any use‑Appellants giving undertaking not to raise more than two‑storeyed building‑Only reason for appeal : that cost of construction may go up by time appeals and suits finalized Appellants/defendants, however, having already filed suit for damages against respondents/plaintiffs appellants defendants held, failed to make out case for stay of operation of order during pendency of appeals‑Appellants, held further cannot be placed in a better position than they had during pendency of injunction application in suit.

Khalid Anwar for Appellants.

A. A. Fazeel, K. A. Ghani and Mirza Yakoob Beg for Respondents.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer

Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad

female advocates from Pindi bhohri lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes

👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.

Lawyers Directory Listing

Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team