Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 340 of 1981, decided on 28th September, 1981.

‑‑‑ O: XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑Injunction‑Courts below appreciating question of grant of injunction, keeping in mind its pre‑requisites and finding balance of convenience in defendants' favour‑No irreparable loss occurring to petitioner‑Courts below, held, exercis ed their jurisdiction legally arid properly in circumstances, [Injunction].

Mushtaq Ahmad Hashmi for Petitioner,

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 28th September, 1981.

This civil revision arises from order of the learned Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan whereby, he on 17th September, 1981 dismissed the appeal filed by Ghulam Muhammad petitioner against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Taunsa dated 20th December, 1980 by which ‑the application under Order XXXIX, rule 1. C. P. C. filed by Ghulam Muhammad, petitioner/plaintiff against Muhammad Fazil and others respondents/defendants in a suit .for declaration filed by the petitioner; plaintiff against the respondents/defendants, was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondents/ defendants filed a suit for the recovery of possession of a plot under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, against the petitioner/plaintiff asserting that the petitioner/plaintiff had forcibly dispossessed them from the disputed plot. The suit was contested by the petitioner. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on 1st July, 1978. The respondents/defendants filed revision against that judgment and the learned Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan accepted the same on 3rd February, 1980 and granted a decree as claimed by the respondents/defendants and directed that they shall be put in possession of the disputed property. The learned Additional District Judge, however, observed that the petitioner/ plaintiff is at liberty to agitate his title, if any, at proper forum. It should be noted that this judgment and decree having not been challenged has, attained finality. After the dismissal of revision referred to above

3‑4. The circumstances of this case do not make out a good ground for interference in the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. It appears that the Courts below have appreciated the question of grant of injunction keeping in mind its pre‑requisites. So far as the question of prima facie, or arguable case and the balance of convenience is concerned I find that there exists a final judgment and decree for the restoration of possession to the respondents/defendants which is to be implemented, and so far as the apprehension of inconvenience, complications and multiplicity of the proceedings are concerned, I am of the opinion that sitting as a Court of law, the Courts have to pass orders according to the canons of law regardless of consequences. I find that the balance of convenience is rather in favour of the respondents/ defendants and that no irreparable loss would occur to the petitioner/ plaintiff who, according to the previous judgments in the suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, ‑had forcibly dispossessed the respondents/defendants.

5. I am of the opinion that the learned lower Courts have exercised their jurisdiction legally and properly. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.

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.