Malik MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition filed by Malik Manzoor Hussain challenging the refusal of the courts below to grant him interim relief during the pendency of his suit for a permanent injunction to restrain respondents from constructing shops and buildings on a joint plot of land. The core legal question concerns whether a co-sharer is entitled to an interim injunction to stop construction on a joint holding prior to partition. The Supreme Court held that where a structure already existed on the property and ongoing construction was nearing completion, the balance of convenience lay in favour of the respondents, and stopping construction would cause them irreparable harm. The Court dismissed the petition, finding the lower courts' decisions fully justified on the record and not arbitrary or capricious, thereby affirming that interim injunctions in such property disputes depend on the specific factual context, including the state of existing construction and balance of convenience.
- Is a co-sharer automatically entitled to an interim injunction to stop construction on a joint holding without partition?
- Does the existence of prior structures and advanced construction on a joint plot shift the balance of convenience against granting an interim injunction?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts refusing interim relief if such findings are not arbitrary or capricious?
ORDER
1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C.J.- Petitioner Malik Manzoor Hussain is aggrieved by the refusal of the Courts below to grant him interim relief during the pendency of a suit instituted by him against the respondents, praying for a permanent injunction for restraining them from constructing shops and buildings over the joint plot of land bearing Khasras Nos. 820 and 821 and situate in village Ojhri Kalan, Faizabad, Rawalpindi.
2. ' The petitioner claimed that he had purchased 10 Marlas of land out of the joint holding on the 28th of April, 1979, and as there had been no partition between him and the other co-sharers, including respondents 1 to 9, they could not raise construction on any portion of the joint holding. The suit was resisted on the ground that the disputed land was not an open plot but a constructed site with a bungalow and other structure thereon, and that the petitioner-plaintiff fully knew the position on the ground when he purchased 10 marlas out of this joint holding.
3. ' An ad interim injunction was granted by the trial Court to the petitioner, but the same was vacated on the 6th of June, 1979. His appeal was dismissed by the District Court on the 4th of July, 1979, and his revision petition has been dismissed on the 10th of July, 1979.
4. ' Relying on the authority of Kishori Lal and others v. Khair Din and others (1), it is submitted by Mr. M.
5. A. Siddiqi, appearing for the petitioner, that the respondents were not entitled in law to put up structures on the joint holding without first applying for a partition thereof, and accordingly, the petitioner had a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction during the pendency of his suit, but unfortunately the Courts below had failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. He further submits that in case the construction is completed, it will create complications, and, therefore, the balance of convenience also lay in his favour.
6. There is no merit in these submissions, for the reason that on the material placed before the trial Court, it became evident that a bungalow had already been constructed on this plot by one Colonel Ghulam Muhammad in the year 1973.74, and the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 9 had purchased the property in question. It was further held that even the on-going construction was nearing completion, and therefore, the balance of convenience lay in favour of the opposite-party, and ad interim injunction stopping the construction at this stage would cause them irreparable harm. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that these findings are in any manner arbitrary or capricious. To us they appear to be fully justified on the record.
7. ' As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(1) AIR 1937 Lah. 288
Cited by 6 cases
- Atia Kausar vs Nasreen Gul and others 2023 CLC 430
- Shahzada Colonel Sharif-Ud-Din and others vs The Settlement Officer 2021 CLC 1968
- THE KARACHI CATHOLIC COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Ltd. vs Mrs. DAPHNE 1990 MLD 2232
- SULEMAN MALA Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY 1990 CLC 448
- NAWAB BEGUM Versus M.A. MAHBOOB 1989 CLC 2252
- Shahzada Colonel Sharifud-Din &others vs The Settlement Officer Districts 2021 PHC 256