Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 685 of 1980, decided on 25th January, 1982.

-----O. XXXIX, r. 1‑Injunction‑Petitioner not having an arguable case in his favour and no irreparable loss likely to be suffered b him if temporary injunction not issued.‑Court below, held, justified in refusing to grant same.

----O. XXXIX, r. 1 & S. 115.‑Injunction‑Discretionary with Courts below‑Jurisdiction of Courts of revision meant primarily for cor recting errors made by subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdic tion and not those made in their discretion‑Exercise of jurisdiction in instant case neither fanciful nor arbitrary‑Revision petition against order of refusal to grant injunction dismissed.

Sh. Abdur Rehman for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 11th January, 1982. ,

This petition calls in question the order dated 10‑5‑1980 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad maintained the order of the trial Court dated 12‑8‑1979 refusing to grant ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner.

2. Abdul Hameed petitioner had initially filed a suit to get a declaration that he was the owner and the sale purported to have been made by him on 11‑3‑1959 was fictitious. The plea found favour with the trial Court, but the learned Additional District Judge upset the findings and his judgment became final. In the meantime the respondents who were said to have purchased the house in dispute filed an ejectment petition against the peti tioner which was allowed by the Rent Controller and his order was maintained in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority. Abdul Hameed petitioner, therefore, filed another civil suit asking for a declaration that he was an owner of the house in dispute and as such he was not a tenant under the ‑respondents. This declaration was apparently sought to contend that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller was without jurisdiction. Additionally a prayer was made for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession. Alongwith the suit he also made no application for temporary injunction, but was refused by the trial Court and on appeal to the learned Additional District Judge, the refusal was upheld. Hence this revision petition.

3. The learned Additional District Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner did not possess a prima facie case. He observed that the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller could not be said to be illegal and thus was not liable to be frustrated by granting a temporary injunction. It is an admitted fact that the earlier litigation was finally concluded against the petitioner and he was unable to get .a declaration that the sale deed was in any manner defective, or that it did not pass title to the respondents. In the same manner the findings of the Rent Controller were maintained in appeal. It is however for the petitioner to satisfy the Court that in spite of all this he was still the owner of the house and that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Unless it is so established, the. petitioner does not appear to have an arguable case in his favour. No irreparable loss was likely to be suffered by him if temporary injunction was not issued. The learned Courts below were, therefore, justified in refusing the temporary injunction to the petitioner. Even otherwise, an injunction is in the discretion of the Courts below, and according to Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood (PLD1970SC139) jurisdiction of this Court is meant primarily for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction and not those which are made in their discretion. It is however clear that exercise of jurisdiction in the instant case is neither fanciful nor in any manner arbitrary.

There is thus no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.