FAZAL BEGUM And Others vs Sh. IJAZ AHMAD And Other
The petitioners' predecessors-in-interest filed a civil suit for declaration of joint ownership and permanent injunction regarding certain land against the respondents, alongside an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking an interim injunction against raising construction. The trial court dismissed the injunction application, but the Additional District Judge subsequently granted it on appeal. The High Court accepted a revision petition, setting aside the appellate order and vacating the stay. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan heard the matter and found no ground for interference with the High Court's order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition while observing that any construction raised by the respondents on the disputed land during the pendency of the suit or subsequent proceedings would be strictly at their own risk and cost. The key principle laid down is that appellate interference with High Court orders in interlocutory injunction matters requires valid legal grounds, and pendency construction remains subject to the final outcome at the litigant's own risk.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court order vacating an interim injunction where no legal ground is made out?
- At whose risk and cost is construction raised during the pendency of a civil suit?
- Can an appellate court's grant of interim injunction be successfully assailed in revision before the High Court?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Facts giving rise to the petition are, briefly, that Inayat Hussain and Siraj Din predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for declaration that they were joint owners of the suit land belonging to Ejaz Ahmad respondent No. 1 and that Muhammad Hussain respondent No. 2 illegally occupied the said land as he had no right therein.
They also prayed for consequential relief by way of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from utilizing certain portions of the said land.
2. Alongwith the plaint they also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Praying for interim injunction restraining the respondents from raising any construction over the land comprising Khasra No. 4237, during the pendency of the suit. This application, was, however rejected by the learned trial Court on 27-2-1982. The plaintiffs thereupon filed an appeal against the above-noted order whereupon the Additional District Judge granted interim injunction on 2-6- 1982. The respondents assailed this order through a revision. The High Court accepted the revision vide the well-considered and lengthy order, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge and vacated the stay order granted by him.
3. We have heard the petitioners' counsel at some length. He has not been able to make out any ground for interference in the impugned order by this Court.
4. It may, however, be mentioned that in case the respondents raise any construction over the Khasra No. 4237 during the pendency of the suit or the subsequent proceedings they shall do so at their own risk and cost.
5. With the above observations the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 9 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
- KARACHI CATHOLIC COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD vs Mirza JAWAD 1994 PLD Karachi 194
- KARACHI CATHOLIC COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. vs Mirza JAWAD 1994 PLD Karachi 194
- THE KARACHI CATHOLIC COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Ltd. vs Mrs. DAPHNE 1990 MLD 2232
- NAZIR KHAN Versus ALI MUHAMMAD KHAN 1988 CLC 1479
- Malik PAIKER MAQSOOD and 106 others vs Sh. MUHAMMAD AMIN and 637 1991 M LD 106
- Shahzada Colonel Sharifud-Din &others vs The Settlement Officer Districts 2021 PHC 256
- PAIKER MAQSOOD Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN 1991 MLD 106