Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2465 2010 SLD 2465 2010 CLC 1335
Sindh High Court

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J
Badar Alam for Plaintiff. Asim Mansoor Khan for Defendan. Arshad Tayably along with Hassan Akbar for Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 6 in person. Nemo for remaining defendants

MUHAMMAD IQBAL KAMDAR--Plaintiff

VS

MUHAMMAD TAHIR AHMADANI and 12 others----Defendants

Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 39 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for cancellation of documents, permanent injunction and damages --- Plaintiff being co-vendee of suit plot under irrevocable power of sub-attorney signed settlement deed agreeing for its sale by defendant/principal @ Rs. 1,22,000/- per square yard and on paying him agreed share in sale price --Plaintiff's claim for an additional amount in addition to his agreed share from defendant/principal alleging sale of suit plot by him @ Rs. 1,44,000/- per square yard---Application for interim injunction by plaintiff---Validity---Defendant/principal had sold suit plot with consent of plaintiff---Plaintiff had received his share of amount as per settlement deed from subsequent vendee on instruction of defendant/principal after executing receipt by mentioning to have surrendered, released, relinquished his right, title or interest therein in favour of subsequent vendee --- Sale agreement and sale deed executed by defendant/principal showed sale of suit plot @ Rs. 1, 22,000/- per square yard --- Plaintiff had raised in suit a question of fact as to whether suit plot had been sold by defendant/principal at a price higher than shown in settlement deed---Such question could not be decided without recording evidence---In case there was any shortfall in payment of share of plaintiff or any fraud on part of defendant/principal, such matter could not be resolved without recording evidence of parties---Subsequent vendee had not caused any loss to plaintiff--In case of refusal of injunction, no prejudice would be caused to plaintiff and loss, if any, could be compensated in shape of damages as claimed by him in suit---Plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction---Balance of convenience was not in favour of plaintiff--- High Court dismissed application for interim injunction in circumstances. Navaid Hussain and 5 others v. Jahangir Siddiqui through Attorney and 9 others 2007 CLC 1568 rel. Hakim Ali v. Sakhi Muhammad and others 1996 SCMR 354; Mrs. Naz Shaukat Khan and 3 others v. Mrs. Yasmin R. Minhas and another 1992 CLC 2540;…
🔒
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