Dr. MA. MAHBOOB and anothers vs Mrs. NAWAB BEGUM
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed appeals filed by the petitioners against an injunction order restraining them from carrying out unauthorized construction. The core legal question concerned the validity of the injunction granted by a learned Single Judge against the petitioners. Upon converting the petitions into appeals, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, with the consent of the parties, disposed of the appeals by directing that the injunction application be governed by the terms of a prior consent order dated 5-10-1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 611 of 1988. The Court clarified that the petitioners were strictly prohibited from performing any construction or finishing work in the disputed area defined in that consent order. To prevent future disputes, the Court appointed the Official Assignee of the Sindh High Court as a Commissioner to visit the site, demarcate the area, and prepare a plan. The judgment establishes the principle that parties may resolve appellate disputes regarding injunctive relief through mutual consent and court-supervised demarcation.
- Can an appellate court dispose of a dispute regarding an injunction based on a prior consent order between the parties?
- Is the appointment of a court commissioner an appropriate mechanism to resolve disputes regarding the demarcation of construction sites?
ORDER
1. AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal directed against the judgment dated 25-3-1992 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in High Court Appeals Nos. 158 of 1989 and 159 of 1989 filed by the petitioners/appellants against the grant of an injunction by a learned Single Judge of the above High Court against the unauthorised construction, dismissing the same, we have converted the above petitions for leave to appeal into appeals and by consent of the learned counsel for the parties Mr. Muhammad Sharif, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and M/s. Mushtaq Memon and Mr. Kazilbash, Advocates Supreme Court for the respondent we dispose of the above appeals as follows:-- "That the injunction application shall be deemed to have been disposed of in terms of consent order dated 5-10-1988 passed upon the C.M.A. No, 4308/88 in Civil Suit No, 611 of 1988 with the clarification that the petitioners/appellants shall not be entitled to carry out any construction work including finishing work in the disputed area referred to in the above consent order dated 5-10- 1988."
2. ' In order to eliminate the possibility of any future controversy, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties we appoint, Official Assignee of the Sindh High Court as a Commissioner to visit the site and to demarcate and prepare a plan of the area where the appellants would not carry out any construction work as stated above. The petitioners/appellants shall pay a fee of Rs,2,000 to the Official Assignee.
3. ' The above petitions/appeals stand disposed of in the above terms with the order as to no costs.
Cited by 3 cases
- Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others 2022 SHC 318
- Sheri C.B.C. and others vs K.B.C.A. and others 2003 C.L.R. 453
- SHENI C.B.B. and others vs K.B.C.A. and others 2003 YLR 1086