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 Petition No. 22‑R of 1986, decided on 12th February, 1986.
(From the order, dated 17‑12‑1985 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No.2451 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, r.3‑‑Interim relief‑‑Refusal to grant‑‑Ejectment proceedings compromised‑ Subsequently, petitioner filed suit to repudiate compromise‑‑Petitioner's prayer for interim relief refused and order upheld in revision‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Plea that petitioner was taken in by respondent's mis representation to enter into compromise, not sustained‑‑There being no prima facie case and petitioner repudiating compromise to which he himself was a party, Courts below, held, had rightly refused him interim relief‑‑Petition dismissed.
Abdul Majeed Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 12th February, 1986.
‑The petitioner, a plaintiff in a pending civil suit, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 17‑12‑1985 whereby a revision petition filed by him against the refusal of the two Courts below to grant him interim relief against an ejectment order was dismissed.
The respondent was the owner of a property in Lahore of a portion of which the petitioner was the tenant. In 1979 she instituted an application for his ejectment on the ground of her bona fide personal need. Subsequently, she filed another application seeking his ejectment from the same property on the ground of default in the payment of rent. In contesting these two applications before the Rent Controller, the petitioner denied the need and the default. Ultimately, the parties entered into a compromise on the 26th of July, 1983 whereby the petitioner undertook to vacate the premises on 1‑10‑1985 and the respondent also granted certain adjustments in the rent due against him.
3. On 18‑9‑1985, i.e. a few days before he was required under the compromise to vacate the premises, the petitioner instituted a civil suit claiming that the respondent had misrepresented as regards her personal need and taken in by such misrepresentation the petitioner had entered into a compromise and undertaken to vacate the premises on 1‑10‑1985. His plea was that but for such misrepresentation and fraud he would not have entered into such a compromise nor undertaken to vacate the premises.
4. The suit was resisted on the ground that no such mis representation or fraud as was alleged was committed by the respondent. The trial Court refused the prayer of interim relief. On appeal, the District Judge affirmed that order. In revision the High Court refused to interfere with it
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was in fact a misrepresentation and fraud, that but for such misrepresentation or fraud the petitioner would not have entered into compromise and that the compromise stood vitiated and he was not bound by it or by the order of the Controller which was in consequence of such a compromise. According to the learned counsel, it was a fit case where interim relief should have been granted.
6. The fact that the claim of personal need was denied on facts by the petitioner bears out that the petitioner had not believed nor was taken in by what the respondent pleaded with regard to her personal need. To say now that what she stated was false actually amounts to resurrecting the written statement and the challenge to her claim ignoring altogether the compromise to which the petitioner was a party wherein he had in no manner indicated that he was taken in and believed the claim made by the respondent with regard to her personal need. In such circumstances there was no prima facie case, for the petitioner repudiated a compromise to which he himself was a party and the Courts below have rightly refused him the ad interim relief. The petition has no merit and leave to appeal is refused.
M .I . sPetition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer