Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 854 2008 SLD 854 2008 CLC 1511
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.841 of 2008, decision dated: 2-07-2008
SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J

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

FARRUKH MUNIR and 2 otherss

VS

PAKISTAN HOUSING AUTHORITY through authorized attorney

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,r.1,2

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,r.1,2

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 --Constitutional petition---Suit for permanent injunction---Application for grant of interim injunction---Defendant lodged a scheme for construction of apartments in a project and plaintiffs purchased apartments in the said project---Claim of plaintiffs was that project as advertised, was subject to a master plan which included parks, and other amenities and defendant was bound to adhere to same in its letter and spirit and could not deviate, but defendant did not adhere to that plan---Plaintiff alleged that defendants indulged into acts of omission and commission; converted area reserved for park into a building---Plaintiff claimed that ingredients for grant of injunction were in their favour---Trial Court granted injunctive relief as prayed for by the plaintiffs, but Appellate Court below having reversed orders of the Trial Court, plaintiffs had filed constitutional petition---Both parties were holding different view points qua the dispute regarding master plan, site plan---Matter needed to be appraised by evidence and required detailed inquiry, where both parties should have opportunity to prove their respective stances by leading evidence---Injunctive relief, was discretionary and was dependant upon three ingredients; prima facie case; balance of convenience; and irreparable loss---In the present case, if construction of apartments in Scheme was stopped, it was bound to cause more inconvenience to prospective buyers who had made payments and in case of delay would suffer inconvenience---Balance of convenience thus lay in favour of defendant and not in favour of plaintiffs---No chance of any irreparable loss was to the plaintiffs as they had already been allocated apartments and in case of deviation by the defendant in the site plan, they would be liable for the consequences and amenable to legal action in accordance with law---Ingredients for grant of injunction, did not favour the plaintiffs, in circumstances---Impugned of the Appellate Court below, was unexceptionable, in circumstances--Constitutional petition…
🔒
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