| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 863 1991 SLD 863 1991 SCMR 305 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.36-R of 1990, decision dated: 14-02-1990(Against the judgment and order dated 17-1-1990 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in C.R.No.486 of 1989)
S. USMAN ALI SHAH AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petition No.36-R of 1990, decision dated: 14-02-1990(Against the judgment and order dated 17-1-1990 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in C.R.No.486 of 1989)
S. USMAN ALI SHAH AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
GOHAR REHMAN and others
LIAQAT ALI and others
Law:
Section:
Easements Act (V of 1882)--S.7--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Plaintiffs' application for interim injunction dismissed by Trial Court as also by Appellate Court and the High Court--Leave to appeal--Three Courts below after examining material before them had come to conclusion that there did not exist prima facie case in plaintiffs' favour; as also balance of convenience--Courts had considered all the aspects of the case and an equitable relief had been refused to plaintiffs--Courts had directed defendants that they would provide an artificial support and they had undertaken not to damage property of plaintiffs--Supreme Court's practice being not to interfere in interlocutory matters, leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Subbarayudu v. Secretary of State A I R 1927 Mad. 988; Tamluk Manufacturing Co. v. Nabadwipchandra A I R 1932 Cal. 542; Prasanna Deb Raikat v. D.H. Railway Co. A I R 1936 Cal. 37; Sampuran Singh v. Arjan Singh A I R 1961 Punj. 414; Bhagwan Das v. Khurshed Begum A I R 1929 All. 885; Rasiklal v. Savailal A I R 1955 Bom. 285 and Gopalakrishna Panicker v. T.Devaswom A I R 1959 Ker. 202 ref. Abdul Rehman Mayat v. Wealth Tax Officer 1988 S C M It 1722 and Khan Baig v. Irshad Begum 1988 S C M R 1775 rel. ORDER ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioners are the owners of the Ritz Hotel, Murree and the steep incline was purchased by the respondents 1 to 2. The petitioners' hotel is contiguous to the land purchased by the aforesaid respondents. The petitioners filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Murree, for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 6 amongst others, from digging on the steep incline adjacent to Ritz Hotel and from cutting trees and from interfering with the sewerage line of the Ritz Hotel. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 6 from digging the steep incline and from cutting trees was also filed. The application was contested by the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents had submitted a plan for constructing a double-storeyed building on the said land. 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