| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2582 2024 SLD 2582 2024 YLR 667 |
Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court
Civil Revision No. 66 along with C.M. No. 765 of 2023, decided on 26th September, 2023.Date of hearing: 26th September, 2023.
Before Ali Baig, C.J.
Israr Hussain and Shujaat Ali for Petitioners. Arsalan Hussain for the Contesting
Respondent No.1. None for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
Civil Revision No. 66 along with C.M. No. 765 of 2023, decided on 26th September, 2023.Date of hearing: 26th September, 2023.
Before Ali Baig, C.J.
Israr Hussain and Shujaat Ali for Petitioners. Arsalan Hussain for the Contesting
Respondent No.1. None for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN---Petitioner
VERSUS
SABIR HUSSAIN and 4 others---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 1,2
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration--- Temporary injunction sought--- Ingredients--- Claim of the plaintiff was that he was owner-in-possession of suit-property which was transferred vide mutation (mutation-in-question) in the name of the defendant only with the condition that the same would be returned to him once he would return the amount borrowed from the defendant---Application for the temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court which order was maintained by the Appellate Court--- Validity--- Petitioner/ plaintiff, in order to substantiate his claim, himself had attached an attested copy of the mutation-in-question---Contents of the mutation-in-question revealed that there was no condition written in the same, rather the respondent/defendant had purchased the suit-property for consideration---Petitioner/plaintiff failed to make out an arguable case in his favour and balance of convenience was not in his favour; moreover, eventually, the petitioner/ plaintiff would win the case, the respondent/defendant would return the suit-property, as such he (petitioner) would not suffer irreparable loss if temporary injunction was not granted in his favour---Respondent /defendant, prima facie, seemed to be bona-fide purchaser of the suit-property---No illegality or material irregularity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below while declining temporary injunction to the petitioner/plaintiff---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. JUDGMENT ALI BAIG, C.J.---The instant civil revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. has been directed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment / order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gilgit in C.F.A. No.25/ 2023, whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court Gilgit has dismissed the civil first appeal of the present petitioner by upholding the judgment/order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Danyore in Civil Suit No. 95/2022. 2. Succulently facts of the case collected from the available record are that the…
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