| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1978 SLG 58 1978 SLD 58 1978 PLD 790 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 32 of 1975, decision & hearing Date : 10-03-1975
AFTAB HUSSAIN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Tufail Basra for Petitioners. Khan Muhammad Younus Khan for
Respondents.
Civil Revision No. 32 of 1975, decision & hearing Date : 10-03-1975
AFTAB HUSSAIN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Tufail Basra for Petitioners. Khan Muhammad Younus Khan for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER
VS
MIRAJ DIN AND ANOTHER
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 0.XXXIX,RR.1,2,151
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) 0. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2 read with S. 151-Temporary injunction-Inherent powers of Court-Temporary injunction not permissible under O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-Such injunction, held, can yet be granted under inherent powers of Court in interests of justice. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AFTAB HUSSAIN, JUSTICE:---.--- In a suit filed by the plaintiff petitioners for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from erecting any wall in Ghausia Street and also from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff's door opening towards the street, a temporary injunction was issued by the trial Court which was later on confirmed. On the 23rd May 1974, that suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs petitioners submitted an application for restoration of the suit. This application was accompanied by another application for temporary injunction. The application for temporary injunction was dismissed on the ground that it was not competent since there was no suit before the Court. 2. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on the 10th January 1975. He held that Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 were applicable to suits. When his attention was drawn to section 151, C. P. C. he held that he was of the view that for the same reason that section was also not attracted. 3. The learned counsel argued that the Courts are never powerless in the present circumstances to give interim relief to the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection about competence of the revision petition. He argued that since the petitioners were relying upon section 151, C. P. C. and were satisfied with the order of trial Court about the applicability of Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. their appeal was not competent. It should, therefore, be deemed that the appellate Court had passed an order dismissing the appeal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, no second revision petition was competent. This argument is without substance. The trial Court, while disposing of theβ¦
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