Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No 33-R of 1980, decided on 6th May, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 12tb December 1979 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in R. S. A. No. 685 of 1979).

-- S. 54 - Permanent injunction - Petitioner--'s counsel making certain admissions and such admissions supporting finding of High Court : "It is absolutely clear that the property had never remained joint and each owner had been selling the specific land for the purpose of construction"-Grant of relief sought by peti tioners being discretionary objection that construction having been completed no relief as claimed by petitioner could be granted to him upheld in view of factual aspects of case and case being not fit for grant of permanent injunction at stage of leave to appeal-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).-injunction].

Moulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 6th May, 1980.

.-Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 12th December, 1979 of the Lahore High Court whereby a regular second .appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

In a suit filed by the petitioner, he had sought permanent injunction restraining respondents from raising construction on the suit land on the ground that he was a co-owner therein and further that the land had not been partitioned. The petitioner's claim was based on an assertion that he had purchased some land from tile original owners who had sold some other land from amongst the unpartitioned Khata to other persons including the respondents. That being so , he claimed that he had a right to restrain the other purchasers from the same Khata from raising any construction without getting the land partitioned.

Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the findings amongst others that there was no basis for the petitioner's claim because the sale relied upon by him in his favour was fictitious. The petitioner', first appeal was dismissed on a technical ground that the land had been partitioned before the sales and the property not being joint the petitioner could not seek a restrictive injunction against the respondent The petitioner's second appeal in the High Court also failed, therefore this petition for leave to appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondents caveators has raised a preli minary objection that the construction having been completed no relief as claimed by the petitioner in the suit can be granted to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that even if it were so, the findings rendered by the learned Courts below would operate injuriously against the petitioner in any other suit that he might file for obtaining the other relief. It is not necessary to go into the details of the merits of the petitioner's case. This petition can be decided on a short point. Learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded before the High Court that gall the purchasers from the original joint owners were in possession of their respective land including the appellant (the petitioner herein)". The learned counsel had also admitted before the High Court that the petitioner had made two purchases one of 3 marlas and the other of 4 kanals, 7 marlas. These admissions would support the findings by the learned Single Judge in the High Court that "it is absolutely clear that the property had never remained joint and each owner had been sell in the specific land for the purpose of construction". In view of these factual aspects of the ca:e, the grant of relief sought by the petitioner 't being discretionary, we upholding the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the caveators, do not consider it a fit case for permanent injunction at this stage nor is it otherwise a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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