Mirza TAHIR BAIG AND Others vs CANTONMENT BOARD, MULTAN CANTT. AND Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a civil revision petition regarding a dispute over easement rights and the construction of commercial buildings by the Cantonment Board, Multan. The petitioners had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alongside an application for a temporary injunction, which were concurrently dismissed by the lower courts. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the parties reached an amicable settlement to resolve the grievance concerning restricted passage to the petitioners' houses. The respondents undertook to remove the front and back walls of a specific shop to serve as a passageway, cover the drains, and refrain from building structures projecting into the street. In consideration of this binding undertaking, the petitioners agreed to withdraw their pending civil suit. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition in terms of the compromise.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be disposed of in terms of a compromise reached between the parties before the Supreme Court?
- Whether easement rights over an open space in a Cantonment area can form the basis of a suit for permanent injunction?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition is directed against the order dated 20-12-1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench, Multan), whereby a Civil Revision Petition (C. R. No. 635/ 82), preferred by the petitioners herein, was dismissed, in limine.
2. The relevant facts are that Mirza Tahir Baig and 5 others filed a suit for declaration to the effect that having enjoyed easement rights for more than 20 years in respect of the open space contiguous to their houses which was situated within the Cantonment area, Multan, the defendants in the suit, namely, the Cantonment Board, Multan Cantt. And its Executive Officer had no right to deprive them of their said rights which they were allegedly doing by erecting some commercial buildings in front of their houses. As a consequential relief they sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defen--dants from interfering with their easement's rights. Alongwith the suit, the petitioners herein had submitted an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. For the issuance of a temporary injunction.
3. The learned Additional Administrative Civil Judge dismissed the applica--petition for temporary injunction on 25-11-1982. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 29-11-1982 by the Additional District Judge. They then moved the High Court by way of a revision petition. This revision petition also failed. Hence this leave to appeal.
4. At the first hearing of this petition before us (on 8-3-1983), a representa--tive of the Cantonment Board, Multan, was also present and assisted us to understand the true factual position at the spot.
5. From the plan of the site shown to us and the discussion held by us with the parties reveals that the real grievance of the petitioners appears to be that by the erection of the new shops, the passage to the houses of the petitioners has become very incon--venient and most difficult. It was felt that if the front and back walls of some shops could be removed and a passage allowed through them to the occupants of the houses belonging to the petitioners, their main grievance would be met.
6. The representative of the Cantonment Board prayed for time seek instructions from the respondents on the points raised, and the case was adjourned to 15-3-1983. .
7. Today both counsel for the petitioners as also the counsel for the respondents alongwith the legal representative of the Cantonment Board are present. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 6 are also present in person. All the parties and persons present before us have been heard. The respondents submit that they are prepared to remove the front and back walls of one of the shops, to enable the said space to be used as a passage. The petitioners submit that if the front and back walls of the shop marked Shop No. 12 on the plan shown to us are removed to enable the said space to become a passage, the drains are covered and no structure projecting into the street is built they will feel satisfied and withdraw their suit pending before the learned Additional Administrative Civil Judge.
8. The counsel for the respondents accepts these conditions. He has given an undertaking before us that the front and back walls of Shop No. 12 shall be removed and no structure raised which will project into the street. The drains will also be covered.
9. The petitioners' counsel has made a statement before us that in view of this undertaking, the present petition may be disposed of in terms of the above compromise and has further submitted that the petitioners shall withdraw the suit instituted by them before the Additional Administrative Civil Judge.
10. This petition stands disposed of in terms of the above compromise.