Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 95/R of 1983 in Civil Appeal No. 133 of 1982, decided on 29th June, 1983.
Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑
----O. XX, R. I‑Stay of proceedings‑Civil miscellaneous petition pend ing appeal‑Petitioner contending that respondents have chalked out programme to raise construction over suit land and for that purpose" they have collected material and if they succeed petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and thus praying for direction to restrain respondents to raise such construction‑Counsel for respondent also heard‑No construction held, shall be raised on disputed land till decision of appeal‑Status quo, held further, fulfils interest of justice,‑[Injunction].
Gul Zaman Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
M. Y. Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 29th June, 1983.
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN,
J.‑‑Nazar Hussain appellant filed this appli cation for restraining the respondents from raising construction over the suit land pending disposal of the Appeal No. 133 of 1982.
2. A gift was created by Qasim son of Mehr of share of land measur ing 10 Kanals and 17 Marlas in favour of Shah Sawar predecessor‑in‑interest of the present respondents vide gift deed dated 31‑12‑1958. A suit was brought by Nazar Hussain for joint possession under the customary law on the ground that the donor was not competent to make the gift which was decreed vide judgment dated 15‑11‑65 of the learned Civil Judge, Gujar Khan. Shah Sawar filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi. Then R. S. A. No. 91 of 1967 was filed but the same was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court and then leave was granted by this Court vide order dated I1‑10‑1982.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the respondents have chalked out a programme to raise construction over the suit land and for this purpose they have collected all the material and if they succeed in raising the construction the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and thus prayed for a directive to restrain the respondents to raise the afore said construction.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent was also present and heard. We consider that in the interest of justice, status quo should be maintained. No construction shall, therefore, be raised on the disputed land until the decision of the appeal.
M. Z. M. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer