Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2,115

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2,115

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Interim injunction, grant of---Principles---Injunction is not to be granted only on the basis that prima facie case existed in favour of plaintiff---Courts are required to take into consideration whether question of balance of convenience or irreparable loss to party seeking such relief co-exists or not---Courts have also to take into consideration whether plaintiff has approached the court with clean hands or not; whether court has been approached promptly or not; whether grant of injunction to a party is against public interest/policy; whether grant of injunction to a party results into undue advantage being given to that party which may perpetuate injustice; and whether party approaching court for interim relief has concealed material facts and or acted in mala fide manner---In case the answer of any of the questions is in affirmative then relief of injunction being discretionary in nature can be declined. Marghub Siddiqui v. Hamid Ahmad Khan and 2 others 1974 SCMR 519 and ATCO Lab. (Pvt.) Limited v. PFIZER Limited and others 2002 CLD 120 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115, O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Suit for declaration---Interim injunction, denial of---Concealing of facts---Plaintiff was denied interim injunction by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Filing of earlier suit was concealed by plaintiff not only in plaint but also in revision petition filed before High Court---Such concealment established that conduct of plaintiff was not above board and she approached the High Court with unclean hands---One who sought discretionary relief was, therefore, required to approach the court with clean hands---One who seeks equity must do equity---Plaintiff was in possession of land in excess of her share and her revision before Board of Revenue was time-barred---During post remand proceedings, plaintiff was given repeated opportunities to present her case but she failed to do so, and consequently her defence was struck off---Plaintiff did not have prima facie case in her favour nor balance of convenience tilted in her favour,…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492