Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 826 1982 SLD 826 1982 PLD 459
Lahore High Court
Civil Revisions No. 311-D of 1982, decided on 16th March, 1982
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J
Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner

MUHAMMAD ASHIQ alias ASHIQ ALIer

VS

RAZIA BEGUM AND others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- Ss. 54 & 55-Injunction-Defendants not confessing but making a statement that they did not deny title of plaintiff to disputed property and would not interfere with his possession over property­Trial Court would in circumstances have been obliged to pass decree in favour of petitioner if respondents had confessed while putting their written statements, or otherwise had, while making such statement, also said that they had no objection to suit being decreed­ Respondents having not done so, trial Court, held, justified in dismissing petitioner/plaintiff's suit in circumstances.-[Injunction-Decree]. Kalo Khan v. Nisar Muhammad Khan and others 1972 S C M R 602 rel, (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 54 & 55-Injunction-Trial Court dismissing plaintiff's suit for injunction on defendants statement that they' had nothing to do with possession of land in question and had no intention to interfere with plaintiff's possession nor will ever interfere with his possession ­Held : Undertaking given by respondents (defendants) having been acted upon by trial Court same for all practical purposes, just like a permanent injunction issued by Court-Non-observance of undertak­ing-Disobedience of injunction granted by Court-Plaintiff in such situation not required in future to file a fresh suit to safeguard his possession-Undertaking given before Court in such regard-Tanta­mounts to stay order.-[Injunction]. The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others P L D 1973 S C 49 rel. ORDER The facts giving rise to this civil revision are that the petitioner, Muhammad Ashiq alias Ashiq Ali, filed a suit against the respondents, Mst. Razia Begum and others, for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his possession over certain land. It was alleged by the petitioner that he was owner in possession of the said land but the respondents were threatening to interfere in his possession. Initially the suit was resisted by the respondents by filing a written statement in which the allegations made by the petitioner had been controverted. Subsequently, however, on 27th September, 1978, they made statements to the effect that they had…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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