| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3087 = 1980 SLD 3087 = 1980 SCMR 150 |
Civil Petition No. 110/R of 1979, decided on 29th October, 1979. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 8-5-79 in Civil Rev. No. 561/D of 1979).
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
Kh. Mohammad Farooq, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhter Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
BASHIR AHMED -Petitioner
VERSUS
INAYAT MASIH AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. XXXIX, rr. 1, 2
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-Temporary injunction-Petitioner holding land as a temporary lessee on year to year basis when such land allotted to respondent under a scheme framed by Government-No averment made by petitioner of allotment having ever been cancelled by competent authority-Petitioner having already failed in his challenge to such allotment, held, not entitled to temporary relief during pendency of suit on. same cause of action.-[Injunction]. Date of hearing . 29th October, 1979. ORDER ANWARUL HAQ; C J.-The petitioner claims to be the temporary allottee of an area of State land measuring 17 acres and 13 marlas; and situate in Chak No. 165/G. B. in Tehsil Samundari of District Faisalabad. He was holding it on. a yearly basis, and the lease was to expire in Rabi 1978. However, the lease was cancelled by the Collector, Faisalabad, in November, 1975, and the land was granted to respondent No. 1 Inayat Masih under the Ejected Tenants' Scheme. The petitioner filed a suit to challenge the allotment of the land to the respondent, and also prayed for a temporary injunction. The prayer for temporary relief was granted by the trial Court, but in appeal the injunction was vacated. The petitioner went up in revision to the High Court and although ad interim relief was granted to him, but his revision petition was ultimately dismissed on the ground that the period of his temporary lease had expired. His suit was also dismissed in default. The petitioner thereupon filed a second suit on the allegation that he had been granted a further temporary lease for a period of five years, but the respondents were threatening to interfere with his possession. He again applied for a temporary injunction, but his application was dismissed by the trial Court as…