| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2740 = 2010 SLD 2740 = 2010 MLD 899 |
Sindh High Court
C.M.As. Nos. 3603/09, 6133 of 2007 in Suit No. 831 of 2007, decided on 5th April, 2010.
Presented By: Muhammad Tasnim, J
C.M.As. Nos. 3603/09, 6133 of 2007 in Suit No. 831 of 2007, decided on 5th April, 2010.
Presented By: Muhammad Tasnim, J
SALMAN ALVI and another---Plaintiffs
VERSUS
UNITED BANK LTD. through President and 3 others-Defendants
Law:
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & S.151---Suit for declaration and injunction---Suit plot was leased out to private defendant in year, 1974---Subsequent sub-division of suit plot in three smaller plots by private defendant---Purchase of one subdivided plot by plaintiff in year, 1987 through registered document from private defendant and taking over its physical possession---Defendant-Bank claiming to be mortgagee of entire suit plot---Plaintiff's application for granting of temporary injunction against defendants---Validity---Object of seeking interim injunction under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 and 2 read with S.151, C.P.C., would be to preserve situation as obtaining on date of suit, prevent an injury to plaintiff during pendency of suit and creation of a new situation---Court while granting such application would consider whether a prima facie case existed in favour of applicant; whether an irreparable loss/damages/ injury might occur to him in case of refusal of injunction prayed for; and whether balance of convenience would lie in his favour or not---Genuineness or otherwise of documents relied upon by parties could not be judged without recording evidence---Prima facie case existed in favour of plaintiff for being in continuous possession of suit plot since year, 1988 under registered instruments---Non-granting of injunction to preserve subject-matter of suit would cause an irreparable loss and injury to plaintiff---Balance of inconvenience was in favour of plaintiff---Fate of suit could not be decided without recording evidence, thus, till its decision, protecting subject-matter of suit from changing hands would necessary---Interim injunction was granted in circumstances. PLD 2007 SC 249; PLD 1958 SC 10; PLD 1968 SC 1025 and 2001 CLC 838 ref. Balagamwala Oil Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Shakarchi Trading A.G. and others PLD 1990 Kar. 1 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Interim injunction, grant of---Object---Scope---Objection of interim injunction would be to preserve situation as obtaining on date of suit, prevent an injury to…