Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2139 2008 SLD 2139 2008 CLC 476
Peshawar High Court

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, 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

Mst. NUSRAT BEGUM

VS

MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN and 10 others

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction---Temporary injunction, grant of---Essential requirements---Petitioner had also annexed with plaint an application for grant of temporary injunction under O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. praying therein that respondents be restrained to raised construction on the suit property and also to prohibit them from alienating said property---Claim of petitioner was that she being co-sharer, and property in question having not been partitioned she was entitled to temporary injunction---Trial Court refused to grant injunction as prayed for by the petitioner on the ground that though plaintiff being a co-share had a prima facie case but for grant of temporary injunction all the three principles namely prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience, must co-exist to entitle her for grant of requisite injunction---Appellate Court below upheld findings of the Trial Court---Validity---Main object of injunction was to restrain a party from wrong doing in future to a person and not to disturb the status quo ante, prevailing before the institution of the suit; whereas tower in dispute had already been completed and was functioning---When an act had already been done and completed no injunction would ensue in the case---In temporary injunction existence of prima facie case was not the only requirement, but the other two essentials, must also co-exist in order to warrant the issuance of temporary injunction, whereas in the present case, petitioner lacked said two requisites, i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable loss---Courts below, in circumstances, had rightly dismissed application of petitioner for grant of temporary injunction---Prayer of petitioner for keeping the status quo intact, was altogether ignored by the two courts below---Respondents were not within their right to transfer the suit property during pendency of the suit---Petitioner was entitled at least to that relief, which was granted accordingly---With that modification revision petition was dismissed. Salahuddin Khan and 3…
🔒
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