Sections 12 and 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O xxxxx, RR 1 and 2 Interim Order Prohibition, Forced Dispossession Approval Prima facie Case Proof The plaintiff claimed that, on the basis of a contract of sale, he had two excavations. There were machines to do it. But the defendant wanted to forcibly expel him, so the plaintiff had the first prima facie case to seek temporary injunction because he had two excavating machines since 10 3 2005, which occupied his possession. Should not be made unless the plaintiff's decision has irreparable harm. The injunction was rejected in such a way and its purpose would be to disappoint and he might not be able to seize the machines in question without difficulty, if he could finally prove his honor on the machines based on the sales agreement. I would have succeeded. The balance of the proof facility was in favor of the plaintiff as well. The law and order prohibiting the legal right of the defendant in any way, in the manner in which he may claim to have seized the machines in question, in the possession of the machines going to the petition with the defendant in the High Court. Prevents interference with which application was allowed \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
