| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLD 721 = 1996 CLC 456 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1404 of 1992 in Suit No.247 of 1992, decided on 17th September, 1994.
Presented By: Before Salahuddin Mirza, J
Akhtar Mahmood and Aziz Malik for Plaintiff. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.G. for Official Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. S. Sharifuddin Pirzada and Ahmad Yousuf Ali Rizvi for Defendant No.4 Aziz A. Munshi and Aftab Ahmad Alvi for Defendant No.5
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1404 of 1992 in Suit No.247 of 1992, decided on 17th September, 1994.
Presented By: Before Salahuddin Mirza, J
Akhtar Mahmood and Aziz Malik for Plaintiff. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.G. for Official Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. S. Sharifuddin Pirzada and Ahmad Yousuf Ali Rizvi for Defendant No.4 Aziz A. Munshi and Aftab Ahmad Alvi for Defendant No.5
ASIF KHAN SHAMIM---Plaintiff
VERSUS
THE GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others---Defendants
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 10
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.I, R.10---Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction---Necessary parties---Person who had entered into contract with defendant for construction and development of land was not a necessary party and, thus, could not be impleaded in suit. Swami Mathan v. L Chetier AIR 1930 Mad. 49; Karam Ali v. Raja and others PLD 1949 Lah. 100; Ismail Brothers v. Kavalram PLD 1981 SC 545 and Nasim Ahmad Khan v. Salim Ahmad Khan 1990 CLC 1299 ref. Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction---Grant of interim injunction-- Essentials---Plaintiff having prima facie established his title over land in question, if construction was allowed to be raised thereon by defendant, plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss, for it would become difficult to separate such construction from the rest of the construction on the remaining adjoining land being raised by contesting defendant---Balance of convenience also seemed to be in favour of plaintiff---Defendants were, thus, restrained from including land in question, in their building plan till disposal of suit. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0.III, R. 1 & S. 151---Arguments by counsel---Two counsel having been engaged by defendants, senior counsel addressed the Court on behalf of his client and plaintiff's counsel made reply to such arguments---Defendant's other counsel, thereafter, insisting to address the Court---No provision of law existing providing reply to reply of arguments---Arguments having been closed, same could not be re-opened, otherwise, there would be no end to such exercise-- Request of second counsel was rejected in circumstances. Akhtar Mahmood and Aziz Malik for Plaintiff. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.G. for Official Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. S. Sharifuddin Pirzada and Ahmad Yousuf Ali Rizvi for Defendant No.4 Aziz A. Munshi and Aftab Ahmad Alvi for Defendant No.5 ORDER The facts leading to the filing of this application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. are, according to the plaintiff, as follows:-- Survey No. 209…