| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3238 = 1981 SLD 3238 = 1981 SCMR 778 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No 33-R of 1980, decided on 6th May, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 12tb December 1979 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in R. S. A. No. 685 of 1979).
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
Moulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.
Civil Petition No 33-R of 1980, decided on 6th May, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 12tb December 1979 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in R. S. A. No. 685 of 1979).
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
Moulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.
MAHMOOD ELAHI-Petitioner
VERSUS
Haji GHULAM HAIDER AND ANOTHER--Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 54
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S. 54 - Permanent injunction - Petitioner--'s counsel making certain admissions and such admissions supporting finding of High Court : "It is absolutely clear that the property had never remained joint and each owner had been selling the specific land for the purpose of construction"-Grant of relief sought by peti tioners being discretionary objection that construction having been completed no relief as claimed by petitioner could be granted to him upheld in view of factual aspects of case and case being not fit for grant of permanent injunction at stage of leave to appeal-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).-injunction]. Date of hearing: 6th May, 1980. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, .J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 12th December, 1979 of the Lahore High Court whereby a regular second .appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. In a suit filed by the petitioner, he had sought permanent injunction restraining respondents from raising construction on the suit land on the ground that he was a co-owner therein and further that the land had not been partitioned. The petitioner's claim was based on an assertion that he had purchased some land from tile original owners who had sold some other land from amongst the unpartitioned Khata to other persons including the respondents. That being so , he claimed that he had a right to restrain the other purchasers from the same Khata from raising any construction without getting the land partitioned. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the findings amongst others that there was no basis for the petitioner's claim…