Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 3240 2019 SLD 3240 2019 CLC 475
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No. 413 of 2017, decision Dated: 19-07-2018. Hearing Dated: 08-03-2018.
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mayhar Kazi
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Haseeb Jamali No.1.

VAQAR AHSON

VS

ZULFIQAR MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 8,42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: S.151,O.XXXIX,R.1,2

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration of title, ownership and possession---Interim injunction---Scope---When there is some dispute with regard to title, ownership and possession of some immovable property most appropriate relief which can be granted on an interlocutory application is to direct parties to maintain status quo and not to create any third party interest in respect of disputed property. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Interim Injunction, grant of---Final relief during interim injunction---Title, determination of---Partition of property---Dispute was with regard to title and claim of property equally divided between brothers---Plaintiff was aggrieved of order passed by Single Judge of High Court where defendant was allowed to raise boundary wall on portion of property subject matter of partition before court---Plaintiff claimed that he was permanent resident of said property for over 30 years and order in question granting permission to erect boundary wall during pendency of trial would cause irreparable loss and inconvenience to him---Validity---Party who had title in respect of an immovable property, could not be deprived of its use and possession unless it was prevented by sufficient cause or by an order of a competent court of jurisdiction to contrary; at the same time, it had to be examined as to whether a party who was admittedly in continuous possession of such immovable property for last more than 30 years and also claimed to be actual owner was also entitled to adduce evidence for purposes of establishing his/her claim in respect of such property---Any interlocutory order at such stage on an application filed by defendant whereby he was allowed to construct boundary wall upon disputed property was not warranted and same did not meet requirements of granting an injunction---Such order amounted to granting a relief of partition and possession without recording evidence---Division Bench of High Court set aside order passed by Single Judge of High Court with…
🔒
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