Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 1233 2002 SLD 1233 2002 SCMR 724
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1579 of 1995, decision dated: 21st March, 2001.(On appeal from the judgment dated 6-7-1995 of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad in Civil Revision No.70 of 1995)
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J., CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ
Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2. Ex parte

Doctor JAN MUHAMMAD and another

VS

Mst. HAMIDA AKHTAR and another

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O.XXXIX, R.I---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suit for declaration---Interim injunction--­Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider the petitioner's contentions that respondent had alleged to be owner in possession of a specific plot out of disputed Khasra number, which was recorded as joint property in Revenue Record; it had not been proved that there had been private partition between shareholders and that respondent was sole owner of plot in question, which had yet to be determined by Court while disposing of the main case on merits; and that order passed on application for temporary injunction had actually disposed of the entire case affecting merits of the case. JUDGMENT CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Paras. 2 and 3 of Leave Grant Order dated 4-12-1995 read thus: "2. Respondent No. 1 claiming to be the owner of 1 Kanal, 4 Marlas in Khasra No.4854 (previous No.3751) situated in Mirpur, Tehsil and District Abbottabad, in Suit No.601 instituted on 28-7-1993, sought declaration that Mutation No.4602 attested on 23-9-1991 whereby 9-1/2 Marlas of land out of said number Khasra is shown to have been transferred in favour of petitioners, is illegal and liable to be cancelled. Alongwith the plaint respondent filed an application for grant of temporary injunction to the effect that petitioner be restrained from interference or encroachment upon the suit-land owned and possessed by her. The suit and the application both were contested by the petitioners. During the pendency of the stay application 'Bailiff' of the Court was sent on the spot to see the stage of construction which was carried out by the petitioners and there was also appointed Local Commissioner for inspection of the spot. The learned trial Judge on consideration of such evidence dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 6-2-1995. During the pendency of that application respondent had also filed an application for contempt of Court alleging that the petitioners have violated the status quo order. Thereupon respondent No. I filed an appeal before the learned District Judge…
🔒
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