Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 634 2009 SLD 634 2009 CLC 1254
Sindh High Court
C.M.As. Nos. 7842, 8641 of 2006 and 6654 of 2008 in Suit No.1385 of 2006, decision dated: 3rd June, 2009
KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, 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

Syed TAHIR HUSSAIN MAHMOODI and 7 others--Plaintiffs

VS

TAYYAB and others----Defendants

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,r.1,2,S.151,11

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,r.1,2,S.151,11

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54,56

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Interim injunction, grant of---Actionable nuisance---Multistoreyed building, construction of---Contentions of plaintiffs were that before conversion of suit plot from residential to commercial and accord of permission to construct multistoreyed building no public objection was invited or notices given in press and/or objections filed by plaintiffs before relevant authorities were not considered---Validity---Entire road on which suit 'plot was situated had been commercialized/converted by relevant authorities---If complete road had been commercialized/ converted it was not necessary to invite public objections or give notice for conversion in respect of individual plots which were situated on the road which had been commercialized---Plaintiffs failed to make out any case as suit property was situated on declared commercial road surrounded by number of multistoreyed buildings wherein commercial activities were in full bloom---Plaintiffs could not pitch their case upon actionable nuisance---Plaintiffs failed to bring on record anything as regard to easement rights to justify interference by High Court---Even to make out a prima facie case by plaintiffs recording of evidence was required---Plaintiffs could not make out a prima facie case and balance of convenience lay in allowing defendants to complete construction of building in accordance with approved building plan---In view of heavy investment made by defendants, irreparable loss was likely to cause to defendants in case injunction was allowed to operate---High Court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of plaintiffs---Application was dismissed in circumstances. PLD 1994 SC 512; (1965) 1 All ER 611; (1993) 1 All ER 65; PLD 1981 SC 377 at pages 426; 1998 SCMR 1618; 1998 PTD 3823; 2000 YLR 1161; 1994 SCMR 1900; 1990 CKC 1337; PLD 1987 SC 145; 2006 SCMR 1202; PLD 2007 Kar. 11; PLD 2008 SC 48; 1999 SCMR 2883; PLD 1974 SC 151; PLD 1970 SC 180; PLD 1991 SC 14; PLD 1990 Kar. 1; PLD 1983 Kar. 303; PLD 1962 SC 119; PLD 1969 SC. 165; PLD 1974 SC 151; 2003 SCMR 537; KLR 1984 Civil Cases 225; 1997…
🔒
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