Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 489 of 1985, decided on 22nd June, 1985.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 24‑3‑1985, in Civil Revision No. 997 of 1982).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr.1 & 2‑‑Interim injunction against raising construction over disputed land granted by appellate Court but set aside in revision‑‑High Court's order maintained with observation that construction made during pendency of suit or subsequent proceedings shall be at risk and cost of respondents‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents

Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1985.

‑Facts giving rise to the petition are, briefly, that Inayat Hussain and Siraj Din predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for declaration that they were joint owners of the suit land belonging to Ejaz Ahmad respondent No. 1 and that Muhammad Hussain respondent No. 2 illegally occupied the said land as he had no right therein. They also prayed for consequential relief by way of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from utilizing certain portions of the said land.

2. Alongwith the plaint they also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying for interim injunction restraining the respondents from raising any construction over the land comprising Khasra No. 4237, during the pendency of the suit. This application, was, however rejected by the learned trial Court on 27‑2‑1982. The plaintiffs thereupon filed an appeal against the above‑noted order whereupon the Additional District Judge granted interim injunction on 2‑6‑1982. The respondents assailed this order through a revision. The High Court accepted the revision vide the well‑considered and lengthy order, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge and vacated the stay order granted by him.

3. We have heard the petitioners' counsel at some length. He has not been able to make out any ground for interference in the impugned order by this Court.

4. It may, however, be mentioned that in case the respondents raise any construction over the Khasra No. 4237 during the pendency of the suit or the subsequent proceedings they shall do so at their own risk and cost.

5. With the above observations the petition is dismissed.

M.I. 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.