Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 104 and 107/R of 1986, decided on 24th May, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, both dated 8‑3‑1986 in Civil Revisions Nos. 142 and 143 of 1986).

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, R.1‑‑Grant of temporary injunction‑‑Order set aside in appeal‑‑Revision petition dismissed by High Court on ground that petitioners had no prima facie case‑‑Agreeing with detailed reasons given by High Court, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal.

Munir A. Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 24th May, 1986.

This order shall dispose of both the aforementioned petitions which are directed against the judgment and orders of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench both dated 8‑3‑1986 whereby Civil Revisions Nos. 142 and 143 of 1986 were dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had no prima facie case, and, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the Civil Judge whereby temporary injunction was granted to the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel contended that the learned Additional District Judge, while passing order, dated 26‑2‑1986, has travelled beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the Court regarding determination of the question of issuance of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit; that the learned Judge, in his aforesaid order, has decided the suit on merits while recording findings on the questions of controversies to be tried in the suit and as such he has acted with material irregularity amounting to illegality which called for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court; that both the Courts below have construed the general power of attorney, which is contrary to the principles regarding construction of documents and instruments, so as to arrive at the correct conclusion that although the question of legal importance regarding the guardianship and its termination after the minor had attained majority, was involved yet the learned Courts below have not resolved this question of vital importance and lastly that there was no prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also on their side and, hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

3. Facts mentioned in the petition briefly stated are that petitioners purchased the land in dispute in Chak No. 88/9‑L Tehsil and District Sahiwal. The sale was made on behalf of the respondent, by her attorney who was appointed as such by her guardian. Possession of the land was delivered to the petitioners and mutation regarding the sale was attested on 25‑3‑1982. Feeling aggrieved by the said mutation, respondent filed an appeal before the Collector, Sahiwal but revision petition filed before the Commissioner, Multan, was accepted and the mutation was ordered to be cancelled which order was upheld by the Board of Revenue no further revision filed by the petitioners. Having failed on the Revenue side the petitioners filed suit for declaration challenging the orders of the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue asserting that they were in possession of the land as owners and decree for permanent injunction was prayed for that their possession may not be interfered by the respondents and an application for grant of temporary injunction was also made before the learned trial Court. Learned Civil Judge granted the temporary injunction per order dated 31‑7‑1985 which was challenged in appeal by the respondent before the learned Additional District Judge who accepted the appeal vide his aforesaid order dated 26‑2‑1986 which order was challenged before the High Court in Civil Revisions 142 and 143 of 1986 which were dismissed, as stated above, by a learned Single Judge vide the impugned orders.

4. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find no substance in them in the light of detailed reasons given in the impugned order wherein the learned High Court Judge has observed as follows:

"According to the learned Additional District Judge the respondent became major on 14‑10‑1980 and thus "her father who executed the general power of attorney as her guardian, no longer remained as her guardian and the general power of attorney also terminated on the said date". As indicated above, mutation regarding sale of the disputed land was attested on 25th March, 1982, long after the attaining of majority by the respondent. It was also pointed out by the learned Additional District Judge that the petitioner had not placed on record anything to show that the respondent had received consideration for the sale in dispute. In regard to the plea of the petitioner that she was in possession of the disputed land, it was remarked by the learned Additional District Judge that she "derived the possession from her father Ch. Muhammad Idrees who was agent, attorney, trustee and Manager of the respondent's property". The petitioner's possession according to the learned appellate Court, was, therefore, of no consequence. Having noted the above factors, it was opined the learned Additional District Judge that the petitioner did not have a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Since the main case is still pending before the learned trial Court I would not like to express my opinion on the merits of the case. However, in view of what has gone above, I can't help saying that there was no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. Learned Additional District Judge was, therefore justified in setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge by which temporary injunction was allowed to the petitioner. There is no merit in this revision. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. In the light of above we see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Consequently, leave refused and both the Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 104/R/1986 and107/R/1986 are dismissed.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.