Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2210 2017 SLD 2210 2017 YLR 981
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 63-D of 2016, decision & hearing Date : 27-05-2016.
MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Yousaf Khan and Nouman Akbar Khan for Petitioner. Latifullah Khan and Sh. Inamullah Khan for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD ABBAS

VS

SAIFULLAH AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, R. 4-A---Injunction to cease to be in force after certain period---Purpose---Order XXXIX, R. 4-A, C.P.C. was enacted for speedy disposal of cases. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX Rr. 1, 2 & 4-A---Temporary injunction---Re-agitation of temporary injunction on fresh grounds---Effect---Plaintiff, in the present case, moved application for temporary injunction along with plaint which was refused by the Trial Court and lower appellate court---Plaintiff, after recording of evidence in main case moved fresh application for temporary injunction on fresh grounds with emphasis on O. XXXIX R. 4-A, C.P.C.---Held that O. XXXIX R. 4-A, C.P.C. was of no help to a person who was lingering on case on one pretext or the other---Once the relief had been refused on the same footing and same record, it could not be re-agitated before any forum---Orders of both the lower courts were in consonance with law---Revision was dismissed accordingly. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Through the instant petition, the petitioner Mohammad Abbas has called in question the judgment dated 02.3.2016 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Paharpur, D.I.Khan, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.10.2015 of learned Civil Judge, Paharpur, D.I.Khan was dismissed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for declaration cum mandatory injunction in respect of land fully detailed in the heading of plaint. Along with the plaint, he had moved an application for temporary injunction which was dismissed and appeal of the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed. After recording some evidence in the main case, the petitioner moved another application for grant of temporary injunction which was dismissed by the Courts below, hence the instant petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the second application for grant of temporary injunction is not barred as envisaged in Order XXXIX, Rule 4-A, C.P.C, so, the learned Courts below, while misinterpreting…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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