| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2053 2021 SLD 2053 2021 PLJ 456 |
Lahore High Court
F.A.O. No. 595 of 2013, heard on 18.3.2015, Date of hearing: 18.3.2015.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE.
Mr. Muhammad Baleeg-uz-Zaman Ch., Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Zabiullah Nagra, Advocate for
Respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Ch., Advocate for
Respondents No. 5 to 10. Mr. Muhammad Rafique Ch., Advocate for Applicants (in C.M. No. 1 & 2-C of
F.A.O. No. 595 of 2013, heard on 18.3.2015, Date of hearing: 18.3.2015.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE.
Mr. Muhammad Baleeg-uz-Zaman Ch., Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Zabiullah Nagra, Advocate for
Respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Ch., Advocate for
Respondents No. 5 to 10. Mr. Muhammad Rafique Ch., Advocate for Applicants (in C.M. No. 1 & 2-C of
CH. MUHAMMAD RIZWAN
VS
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS, ETC.
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 12
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 96,1,2
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----S. 12--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 96, O.XXXI Rr. 1, 2--Suit for specific performance--Application for grant of temporary injunction--Dismissed--Agreements to sell--Defecto guardian--Agreement to sell on behalf of minors--Creation of rights or title--Balance of inconvenience--Rule of lis pendense--Challenge to--It is settled principle of law that a defecto guardian has no authority to enter into an agreement to sell on behalf of minors--It is settled principle of law that mere execution of an agreement to sell neither creates right or title in immoveable property has no batter case than respondents, who are title holder of disputed property and for grant of temporary injunction, applicant, has not only to establish that he has a prima facie case, but he has also to show that balance of inconvenience is on his side and that he will suffer irreparable loss unless he is protected during pendency of suit while issuing Injunctive order in his favour--Rule of lis pendens is available to appellant, if disputed property is further alienated by respondents/defendants--In presence of said principle appellant cannot be equipped with relief of temporary injunction and trial Court after assessing required three ingredients has rightly declined grant of stay order--There is much force in contention of counsel for appellant that findings of trial Court to extent that alleged agreement executed by Respondent No. 1 to 4 did not bear characteristic of agreement is not plausible--Counsel for respondent has also conceded said fact--Anyhow findings of trial Court as well as of this Court are of tentative nature and will not influence trial Court at final decision of suit, which will be made independently on basis of evidence likely to be produced by parties during trial--Petition dismissed. 2000 SCMR 961, PLD 1994 SC 674 and 2008 SCMR 352 ref. ORDER The facts germane for the disposal of instant appeal are that Ch. Muhammad Rizwan present appellant being plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of two agreements to sell dated 16.10.2011 with the assertion that Respondent No. 1 to 4 being owners of property measuring…
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