| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1597 2021 SLD 1597 2021 YLR 1629 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No. 49 of 2018, decided on 4th December,2020, Dates of hearing: 3rd, 11th and 17th November, 2020.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE, YOUSUF ALI SAYEED, JUSTICE
Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam for Appellants.Muhammad Akram Qureshi for
Respondent No.2.Miran Muhammad Shah, A.A.G. for the official
Respondents.
High Court Appeal No. 49 of 2018, decided on 4th December,2020, Dates of hearing: 3rd, 11th and 17th November, 2020.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE, YOUSUF ALI SAYEED, JUSTICE
Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam for Appellants.Muhammad Akram Qureshi for
Respondent No.2.Miran Muhammad Shah, A.A.G. for the official
Respondents.
SYED HAMID MIR THROUGH ATTORNEY AND ANOTHERVSBOARD OF REVENUE SINDH THROUGH MEMBER/SECRETARY LAND UTILIZATION DEPARTMENT AND 9 OTHErs
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 1,2,9
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2 9---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Temporary injunction, refusal of---Discretionary jurisdiction--- Scope filed a suit contending therein that a part of their land was illegally occupied by some of the respondents filed applications seeking direction to the respondents to restore their possession and grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking coercive action---Single Judge of High Court dismissed the applications on the grounds that it was not possible to give any conclusive finding at that stage as to the exact location of the land and that the grant of mandatory injunction would also tantamount to granting final relief at the interlocutory stage---Validity---Assessment of Single Judge on both scores could not be faulted let alone said to be unreasonable---Decision to grant or refuse an interlocutory injunction was a discretionary exercise and the appellate court must not interfere solely because it would have exercised the discretion differently---Scope of inquiry in exercise of appellate jurisdiction was not to second guess the exercise of judicial discretion but to satisfy itself that such exercise was judicious in terms of being reasonable---Impugned order reflected a well-reasoned approach, which was in consonance with settled principles relating to the issuance of temporary injunctions---Appeal was dismissed. Roomi Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Stafford Miller Ltd. and others 2005 CLD 1805; Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton [1983] 1 A.C. 191; Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Zaman Khan and others 1997 SCMR 1508; Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others (2013) 9 SCC 221 and Mohammad Idris v. The Collector of Customs, Karachi and another PLD 1971 Kar. 736 rel. JUDGMENT YOUSUF ALI SAYEED, J.--- The Appeal impugns the short Order dated 21.02.2018 made in Suit Number 849 of 2017 (the Suit) pending before this Court on the Original Side, whereby a learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss two Miscellaneous Applications, bearing C.M.As. Nos. 5347/2017 and 5345/2017…
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