Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 657 of 1981, heard on 12th March, 1983.

‑‑‑ O. XXXIX, rr. I & 2 and S. 115.‑Temporary injunction, held, cannot be allowed as a matter of course in cases where even to establish prima facie case evidence has to be produced‑No jurisdic tional error found in order of appellate Court setting aside order of trial Court granting temporary injunction, interference by High Court declined in revision.

Aish Bahadur Rana for Petitioner.

Shahid Hussain Kadri for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 12th March, 1983.

This revision petition under section 115, C. P. C. is directed against the judgment dated 17th May, 1981 whereunder the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, accepting the appeal of the respondents set aside the order dated 30th November, 1980 granting temporary' injunction to the petitioners in the suit filed by him. Learned Appellate Court observed that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents seems to be plausible that the petitioner‑plaintiff was occupying the disputed shop as a trespasser, the reason being that there was nothing on the record to sub stantiate the possession of the petitioner‑plaintiff over the disputed shop as a tenant. He further observed that the view of the trial Court that the radio licences for the years 1973, 1975 and 1977 produced by the petitioner plaintiff cannot in any way support the plea of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the disputed shop, as a tenant.

2. Learned counsel has assailed these findings by urging before me that the long and old possession since 1971 was sufficient to entitle the peti tioner to seek protection of the said possession irrespective of the fact that the said possession was authorized or unauthorized. It is further submitted that the petitioner can produce witnesses in support of his plea that he was a tenant in the disputed shop since 1971, and that without giving him that opportunity, it cannot be held that the petitioner was not able to make out a prima ,facie case. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that presently there is nothing on record to show even prima facie that the petitioner came in possession in the year. 1971 or that his possession was that of a tenant.

3. Having considered the respective submissions I am of the view that in the circumstances noted above interference is not called for in the judg ment passed by the learned Additional District Judge in appeal. No juris dictional error has been pointed out. Moreover, I have no reason to differ with the view which prevailed with the learned Additional District Judge It is well‑established that temporary injunction cannot be allowed as a matter of course in those cases where even to establish prima facie case evidence has to be produced.

4. For the reasons given above, the revision petition fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. 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.