Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 2603 2003 SLD 2603 2003 CLC 1016
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 1507 of 2000, decision dated: 27-08-2002.
SHABBIR AHMED, 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

MIR SHAH MUHAMMAD GABOL --Plaintiff

VS

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 4 others ----Defendants

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------0. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Temporary injunction, grant of ---Encroacher has no right to approach Court for grant of discretionary relief---Balance of convenience for grant of injunction does not lie in favour of such person. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. VIII, R. 10 & 0. IX, R. 7---Written statement, failure to file--­Recalling of order of ex parte proceedings---Defendant's plea was that non-filing of written statement was neither deliberate nor intentional as sanction to defend suit had been received late from Solicitor Department---Validity---Law leans adjudication of dispute on merits--­Suit was still at the stage of hearing interlocutory application and had not reached to stage of issues---High Court recalled such order and allowed defendant to file written statement. (c) Administration of Justice--- ---- Law leans adjudication of dispute on merits. Mustafa Lakhani for Plaintiff. Abbas Ali, Add1.A.-G. Mr..Irfan for Defendant No.5. ORDER The plaintiff through C.M.A. 9357 of 2000 seeks restraint order against the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit land till disposal of the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased a Katcha hotel from one Dost Muhammad son of Sahib Khan on 30-1-1999, on 2000 sq. yds. In Naclass 309 in Deh Jorgi, Karachi, Malir, for consideration of Rs.1,40,000 vide Sale Agreergent (Annexure-A). It is also the case of the plaintiff that said Dost Muhammad was paying remokal which is regularly paid by the plaintiff. Said Dost Muhammad had applied in the year 1987 for regularization of the said land. The application was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner. Defendant No.3 submitted report to the Deputy Commissioner admitted possession of the plaintiff and value of the plot was assessed at Rs.6 lacs per acre. The plaintiff's case is that he is ready and willing to pay the price, whereas defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are not ready and willing to lease the land. The plaintiff now seeks an order of injunction against the defendants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the plaintiff has no prima facie case…
🔒
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