Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1224 2017 SLD 1224 = 2017 PLJ 51
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 2389 of 2014, decided on 16.12.2016. Dates ofhearing: 9, 15, 29.10.2015, 15.08.2016 and 25.11.2016.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.
Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam, Mr. Imran Taj and Mr. Khalid Iqbal, Advocates for Plaintiff.Mr. Arshad M. Tayebaly and Muhammad Shahzad Ashraf, Advocates for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.Mr.Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate for Defendant Nos. 8, 9 and 10.Syed Iftikharul

ALTAMASH MEDICAL SOCIETY through Secretary . --PlaintiffVSDr. ANWAR YE BIN JU and others . ----Defendants

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) --.-- --.-- O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 --.-- Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 39 --.-- Temporary injunction --.-- Sale deed --.-- Cancellation of registered deed --.-- Construction of medical institution --.-- Violation of lease --.-- Right of easement for allotment of plot --.-- Amenities could not be leased, sub-leased, gains --.-- Transferred to any person for personal convenants of lease --.-- Violation of covenant of lease if any can only be challenged by lessor and not strangers --.-- Injunction cannot be granted when conduct of plaintiff has been such as to disentitle him to assistance of Court --.-- An injunction is an equitable relief based on well-known equitable principles --.-- All presumptions and ambiguities are taken against party seeking to obtain temporary injunction --.-- Balance of convenience and inconvenience being in favour of defendant i.e. greater damage would arise to defendant by granting injunction in event of its turning out afterwards to have been wrongly granted, than to plaintiff from withholding it, in event of legal right proving to be in his favour, injunction may not be granted --.-- Plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case and in fact balance of convenience lies in favour of private defendants --.-- No question of sustaining any irreparable injury ascends to plaintiff in capacity and character of whistleblower --.-- Lessor has not initiated any action against alleged violation of lease and another crucial factor is also significant to point out that if a later stage suit is decreed and lease of amenity plot is cancelled or any direction is issued to lessor to take action against alleged violation of lease that would not amount an outright transfer or allotment of plot to plaintiff as their vested or legitimate right but law will take its own course. Lease Deed of Amenity Plot --.-- --.-- Scope of --.-- Not entitled to sell plot --.-- Violation lease --.-- Convenants lease --.-- Allotted amenity plot for construction of hospital, using as residence --.-- Distinction between individual interest and interest of public at large --.-- It is a well settled principle of law…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register