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 Revision No: 1860 of 1983, decided on 23rd January. 185.
--S. 115- Revision Interim relief refused by Courts below Counsel for respondents did not turn up for arguments--Respondents were proceeded against ex parte--Plea of petitioners that they had prima facie for interim relief, that balance of convenience was in their favour and that they were in actual physical possession Proceedings being ex parte there was none to challenge such plea--Possession of petitioner, held, should not be disturbed till decision of suit--Trial Court was directed to conclude proceedings at the earliest--Revision petition was accepted in circumstances.
Hakam Qureshi for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1985.
Land measuring 5 Kanals 16 Marlas, situated in Mauza Khokhar, Tehsil and District Lahore was owned by Allah Bakhsh, predecessor-in -interest of the respondents. lie mortgaged it with one Fazal Din in the year 1933. Fazal Din subsequently sold his mortgagee rights to petitioner No.1 Rehmat Elahi and Mutation No. 350 was effected on 12-1:1-1933.
2. Allah Bakhsh, thereafter in 1936, sold the land in favour of Rehmat Elahi and Muhammad Tufail, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners 2 to 5 for Rs.299.
Allah Bakhsh again sold this very land to Muhammad Bakhsh through a registered sale-deed, dated 26-3-1947 for Rs.1,500.
3. Muhammad Bakhsh on the basis of the sale-deed dated 26-3-1947 filed suit against petitioner No.l for redemption of the mortgage in his favour. The suit was filed in 1951. Statement of Muhammad Bakhsh was recorded on 17-9-1951. He admitted that the land had, earlier been sold in favour of petitioner No.l and predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos. 2 to 5. He withdrew the suit and stated that he would prosecute Allah Bakhsh.
4. In 1977 respondents 1 to 5 got the land redeemed by an ex parte order. Petitioner No.1 moved an application for setting aside the said order but the same was rejected. He failed upto the Board of Revenue.
5. Consequently, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents on 27-1-1982. Alongwith the suit they also filed application for temporary injunction. The application was dismissed by the trial Court on 8-12-1982. The petitioner preferred appeal before the District Judge, who dismissed the same by his order dated 22-11-1983.
Hence this civil revision.
6. The case is listed for today Ch. Muhammad Hanif Bhatti, Advocate counsel for the respondents has not turned up. The respondents are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have a prima facie case for interim relief. The balance of convenience is also in their favour. They are in actual physical possession. Hence the two Courts below erred in law in refusing to grant them interim relief .
8. As the respondents have been proceeded against ex parte. There is none to challenge these contentions.
9. I, therefore, allow this civil revision. The possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed till the decision of the suit. The trial Court is, however, directed to conclude the proceedings at the earliest. Intimation shall be sent to the Registrar of this Court when the case is finally decided.
No order as to costs
A. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer