| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 324 2024 SLD 324 2024 MLD 387 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 2020 of 2021, C.M.As. Nos. 15030 and 15031 of 2021 decided on 22nd March, 2023.Dates of hearing: 14th, 23rd September, 2022, 1st, 3rd, 10th, 20th, 27th February and 6th March, 2023.
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J
Ayan Memon and Ali Zuberi for Plaintiff. Khurram Rasheed for Defendant No. 2. Sandeep Malani, Assistant Advocate General and Ms. Mahreen Ibrahim, Assistant Attorney General for Federation.
Suit No. 2020 of 2021, C.M.As. Nos. 15030 and 15031 of 2021 decided on 22nd March, 2023.Dates of hearing: 14th, 23rd September, 2022, 1st, 3rd, 10th, 20th, 27th February and 6th March, 2023.
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J
Ayan Memon and Ali Zuberi for Plaintiff. Khurram Rasheed for Defendant No. 2. Sandeep Malani, Assistant Advocate General and Ms. Mahreen Ibrahim, Assistant Attorney General for Federation.
Messrs FORTUNE FOUR LLP through Designated Partner---Plaintiff
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Aviation Division and others---Defendants
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 1,2
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration and injunction---Interim injunction, grant of---Dispute with regard to demarcation of suit land and right of way---Creating third party interest over the strip of land in question could prejudice right of plaintiff insofar as ingress and egress of the plaintiff over the plot through main Jinnah Avenue and its service lane (if so determined) was concerned---Such determination required evidence as to what the original plan of defendant/Civil Aviation Authority was; whether the strip was included within the land that was granted to defendant/Civil Aviation Authority and if so for what purpose that strip of land was left for, as it was adjacent to a huge land and owner's access could not be blocked; and whether subject plot as disclosed to have been bounded from the northern side by Jinnah Avenue Road could still be objected as far as right of way was concerned, on the count of security etc.---Plaintiff had to demonstrate only an arguable case---Plaintiff had shown prima facie case---Buying property on "as is where is basis" did not conclude that it was purchased with an understanding that there was no right of way from the northern side (Jinnah Avenue)--- High Court granted interim injunction to the extent that defendant/Civil Aviation Authorities was restrained from creating third party interest over the strip of land that bifurcated plot in question and Jinnah Avenue---Application was allowed accordingly. ORDER MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.---In compliance of a decree, the property was auctioned in execution proceedings1. Initial attempt to auction the subject property was not materialized vide order dated 15.12.2004 passed in Execution Application No.151 of 2001 when, on raising of boundary wall by Civil Aviation Authority on the subject land, purportedly denying the right of way, from main Jinnah Avenue, it was suggested that either to get the wall removed or the money paid by the auction purchaser be returned as they were not prepared to purchase it without a right of way. 2. The auction purchaser again agitated his grievance…
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