Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Revision No. 1081-D of 1986, decided on 5th May, 1986.
---S. 115 & O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2--Interim injunction--Concurrent findings of Courts below--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Concurrent findings of Courts below in declining interim injunction were based on circumstances which remained uncontroverted by petitioners seeking interim injunction--- Discretion exercised by Courts in declining interim injunction to petitioners, held, conformed to requirements of law and thus would not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch for Petitioners.
This revision petition by Sarwar etc. is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Okara, dated 1st of February, 1986 whereby he dismissed their appeal from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Okara on 25th of November, 1985 dismissing their application for grant of an ad interim injunction.
2. On the death of one Hamad in the year 1978 mutation or inheritance in respect of the property left by him was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners as his legal heirs and the respondent as his widow. The petitioners assailed the mutation of inheritance on the revenue side denying that the respondent was the widow of the deceased. According to them, she was the wife of one Pallu. They did not succeed and, therefore, they filed a civil suit for a declaration that the respondent was not the widow of the deceased and was not entitled to inherit the property left by him. They also filed an application for a temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit restraining the respondent from interfering with their possession.
3. The application was opposed by the respondent. The learned Civil Judge vide his order, dated 25th of November, 1985 dismissed the application observing that they did not possess a prima facie case.
4. Feeling aggrieved they preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Okara vide his impugned order.
5. Learned Courts below in their orders have referred to various circumstances, which according to them tend to show that the petitioners lack prima facie case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert any of those circumstances. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the learned Courts below in declining the ad interim injunction to the petitioners conforms to the requirements of law and does not call for interference on the revisional side. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.
H . B . T . Revision petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer