You are on page 1of 4

• Home

• Words & Phrases

• Legal Terms
• Topics
• Maxims
• Profile
• Site Map
• Account Status

• Help
Search within Results :

Control Your Search by Selecting Court and Book Name :

Your Search for Topic () returned 17 individual Titles.

Now Displaying : Page 1-2

Citation Name : 2010 CLC 285 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ABDUL GHAFFAR
Side Opponent : WAQAS HAFEEZ

O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8---Suit for possession---Family partition
---No nexus or connection with disputed land---Effect---Plain tiff filed suit for possession through
partition along with an application for temporary in junction claimin g therein that the plain tiff bein g
co-sharer in the disputed property could not be deprived of use of his share as he was entitled to and
had a proprietary in terest in every in ch of the undivided Khata---Defendants contested suit on the
ground that as a result of family partition the defendants were in possession of the disputed land out of
total land in join t Khata for the last 25 years and that the plain tiff had no nexus or connection with the
said partition ---Trial Court dismissed application for restrain in g order again st defendant---Appellate
Court on appeal also dismissed the same---Validity---Record revealed that the suit was at prelimin ary
stage---Right of the plain tiff in the disputed land and its extent had yet to be determin ed by recordin g
of evidence---Defendants were in exclusive possession of the disputed property for the past 25 years on
the basis of family partition ---Prima facie case in favour of the plain tiff was not clearly made out---
Defendants had in vested huge sums of money in construction of CNG Station and in stallation of
equipment and machin ery thereon---Order restrain in g defendants from operatin g the CNG Station
would cause in convenience to them more compared to the plain tiff who had no nexus or connection
with the disputed land for the past 25 years---Loss, if any, would be calculated in monetary terms---in
gredient of irrepairable loss was missin g in the suit---Plain tiff had failed to show any illegality or
material irregularity committed by subordin ate courts in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them---
Petition was dismissed by High Court.

Citation Name : 2009 CLC 1136 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ABDULLAH
Side Opponent : Mst. SAIDAN BIBI

S. 144---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Application for

restitution---Scope---Petitioners, in the present case, had in itiated litigation as plain tiffs claimin g a
decree for declaration and permanent in junction---Provision of S.144, C.P.C. is based on fundamental
prin ciples of law that an act of court should not in jure any person---Restitution is ordered again st the
holder of the decree who, in execution thereof, has deprived the opposite party of some benefits and
Citation Name : 1995 PLD 462 SUPREME-COURT


Side Opponent : AURANGZEB KHAN

Constitution of Pakistan 1973 0. XXXIX, Rr.l & 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--
Temporary in junction---Grant of---Join tly owned land---One of the co-sharer s wanted to construct a
house on a portion of such land---Other co-sharer s objected to such construction and filed suit for in
junction on the ground that the property was join tly owned by the parties, therefore, the co-sharer be
restrain ed from raisin g any construction till such time that regular partition of the land took place---
Numerous mutations of sale had been sanctioned of small pieces of land, out of the suit Khasra number
for construction purposes and after carvin g out Tatimmas houses had been constructed on such land--
Even portion of the land in possession of tie co-sharer (who wanted to construct the house) was earlier
sold by one of the co-sharer s who later sold it to him (the co-sharer )---Land in question, thus, had its
own identity from rest of the land in suit---High Court, therefore, was justified to set aside that order of
in junction in favour of co-sharer s who objected the construction of house by the other co-sharer with
direction to the co-sharer who wanted to construct the house to furnish security to the effect that he
would remove the construction in case of success of the other co-sharer s regardin g the suit land---
Order of High Court bein g in conformity with the law, givin g sufficient safeguard to the in terest of
both the parties, Supreme Court declin ed in terference and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

Citation Name : 1994 CLC 2409 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASHIQ

co-sharer ----Entitlement of co-sharer to construct on join t property ---Suit for in junction restrain in
g defendant from raisin g constructions on the join tly owned land decreed ---Legality---co-sharer could
not, ordin arily be permitted to alter the nature of join t property , and to put it to different use from the
one for which it was in tended---Neither defendant nor his vendor had been able to establish exclusive
possession over the land in question, defendant therefore, could not use it to lay foundation thereon---
Even if defendant/co-sharer had been in possession of land in question, still he could not raise
construction thereon, without consultin g other co-sharer or partition of land

Citation Name : 1994 MLD 550 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : FAZAL DIN
Side Opponent : UMAR BIBI

Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary in junctions and in terlocutory Orders
----OXXXIX, Rr.1 & 2 & S.115---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54--Temporary in junction---Grant
Copyright Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd.