A. XXXIX, in the case of the plaintiff's father being the tenant of the validity of the application for interim injunction for the specific performance of the contract, the order of removal of the property from the plaintiff by the Supreme Court plaintiff by the present controller An order was finalized, confirming such an order. Subsequently, the defendant (one of the landlords) filed a lawsuit for the specific execution of the contract for sale, and applied for an ad hoc order that would allow him to leave the country until the decision of this case. Should not be interfered with. The alleged execution of the contract was as a tenant. If the claimant had taken possession of his father, he too was unauthorized occupation and would be bound to withdraw the order of withdrawal granted against his father in such case the grant of leave to the claimant. Would be like ordering. In order to establish the claim that the alleged sale agreement was executed between the parties, the plaintiff did not claim that he was in real or constructive ownership and also in the sale agreement that the plaintiff was in possession of the property in question. Had no right Therefore, if an injunction was denied, no irreparable harm would be incurred, the balance of the facility was not in favor of the plaintiff but in favor of the defendant who received the withdrawal order received after a lengthy trial. Benefit from the benefits.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 1995
