| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 209 2023 SLD 209 2023 CLC 372 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.3084 of 2021 and C.M.A. No.22824 of 2021, decided on 10th January, 2022.
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J
Muhammad Safdar for Plaintiff. Agha Zafar Ahmed for Defendant No.1. Khursheed Javed, D.A.G.
Suit No.3084 of 2021 and C.M.A. No.22824 of 2021, decided on 10th January, 2022.
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J
Muhammad Safdar for Plaintiff. Agha Zafar Ahmed for Defendant No.1. Khursheed Javed, D.A.G.
SHARIF ULLAH KHAN--Plaintiff
VS
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES LIMITED through Chairman and 2 others----Defendants
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 1,2
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 21,56
Law: Easements Act, 1882
Section: 60.62
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 21, 56---Easements Act (V of 1882), Ss. 60, 62---Contracts not specifically enforceable---Injunction when refused---Licence when revocable---Licence when deemed revoked---Temporary injunction, refusal of---Scope---Petitioner sought an injunction restraining the defendant to re-auction the right of lifting of garbage in view of his agreement with the defendant---Validity---Agreement provided that the same was effective for a year unless the owner/defendant terminated the same---Defendant had “acquired” right under the agreement to terminate it without assigning any reasons specifically in relation to the agreement which was in the shape of a permissible right which could only be granted as a licence agreement---Status of the agreement was of a licence, therefore, no vested right could accrue in favour of petitioner---In terms of Ss. 60, 62 of the Easements Act, 1882 it was not vested right of a licensee to enforce the terms of such agreement which in its present form only presented permissible rights i.e. terms of agreement as stated therein which could be withdrawn, even without notice in case of a licence---Petitioners right was not matured to enforce rest of the agreed obligation including the tenure of one year---Petitioner had already secured his right by way of the suit in the shape of recovering damages---Section 21(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, provided that the agreement could not be enforced which in its nature was revocable---Section 56(f) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, provided that an injunction could not be granted to prevent the breach of a contract, the performance of which could not be specifically enforced---No case of any injunctive order had been made out---Injunction application was dismissed. ORDER MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.----Counter affidavit to application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 filed on behalf of defendant No.1 is taken on record and plaintiff’s counsel insisted for hearing without filing rejoinder. The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking specific performance of an agreement along with damages and interim injunction in…
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