Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SIDDIQI Versus LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's regular second appeal on the grounds of limitation and merits. The core legal question involved the maintainability of a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from allotting a plot when the plaintiff was not in possession, particularly in circumstances where previous suits instituted by the plaintiff had been dismissed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's order suffered from no infirmity, affirming that a suit for injunction is not maintainable by a plaintiff out of possession and is further barred due to the dismissal of earlier connected suits. The key principle laid down is that a suit for injunction regarding property cannot be maintained by a party who is not in possession, and repeated litigation on the same subject-matter after previous dismissals is untenable.
- Is a suit for injunction restraining the allotment of a plot maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession of the said plot?
- Whether a subsequent suit is maintainable when previous suits filed in respect of the same matter have been dismissed?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against an appellate order that is free from legal infirmity on limitation and merits?
AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 14-11-1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No, 1060 of 1970 filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on the merits for the following reason:-
"....Even on merits, appellant has no case as admittedly he not being in possession of the plot in question, the suit for injunction restraining the respondents from allotting the plot in dispute is not maintainable. Moreover, admittedly this is third suit in the series and the first two suits having been dismissed, the present suit was not maintainable. The suit primarily failed because of the dismissal of the previous suit. The finding that the suit was not maintainable and the other observations made by the two Courts below could not be controverted by learned counsel for the appellant before me. There is thus to merit in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
2.Choudhry Muhammad Sadiq, learned Advocate Supreme Court; appearing for the petitioner, is not able to show as to how the impugned order suffers from any infirmity. However, he submitted that this Court may make observation to the effect that the petitioner may be given plot No, 107, which was offered to the petitioner by the respondent as an alternate plot and which according to him is still allegedly available.
3.We are not inclined to grant leave. Leave is refused. As regards the above request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will suffice to observe that the petitioner is free to approach the respondent with his above request which will be dealt with in accordance with law.
Judges on this bench
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments
- Wali Muhammad Khan585 judgments