KHAIR DIN AND 3 Others vs JAMAL DIN
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision application by the High Court, which upheld an order directing the petitioners to restore the respondent to possession of a disputed site after he was illegally dispossessed during the pendency of a permanent injunction suit. The respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Lyallpur, where a temporary injunction was granted under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question concerned the propriety of restoring a party to physical possession who was dispossessed in violation of an existing temporary injunction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent orders of the courts below suffered from no defect, noting that the respondent's actual physical possession of running a sweetmeat shop was rightly protected, with the High Court adequately safeguarding the petitioners' financial interests by ordering monthly compensation deposits pending the final adjudication of the suit.
- Whether a court can order the restoration of possession to a party illegally dispossessed in violation of a temporary injunction?
- Does the concurrent exercise of discretion by lower courts regarding interim injunctions warrant interference in special leave to appeal?
- Can a court direct a party in possession to deposit monthly compensation as a condition for protecting interim physical possession pending suit adjudication?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-In a suit filed by the respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Lyallpur, for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from dispossessing him illegally from the site in dispute, a temporary injunction was granted to him on his prayer for the same, on an application moved under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Subsequently, the respondent filed another application complaining that lie had been illegally dispossessed in spite of the temporary injunction. On this application, the learned Civil Judge ordered that the respondent should be put back into possession. The petitioners challenged this order in a revision application to the High Court, which has been dismissed, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. It is manifest from the orders of the Courts below that the respondent was in actual physical possession of the disputed premises, and is running a sweetmeat shop there. His physical possession has been protected by the interim relief granted to him without prejudice to the rights and title of the petitioners, which will be duly adjudicated in the suit, which is still pending. The learned Single Judge in the High Court has protected the interests of the petitioners by directing the respondent to deposit Rs. 150.00 per mensem in Court to be paid to the petitioners as compensation for the user of the premises, in Case his suit is dismissed.
4. We do not consider that tile exercised by the Courts below concurrenty in this matter in the respondent's favour suffers from any defect. The petition is dismissed.