ABDUR RASHID vs SAEED AKHTAR
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a civil revision regarding the refusal of a temporary injunction. The petitioner, having filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, sought an injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restrain the respondent from selling the property and dispossessing him. While the trial court initially granted the injunction, the Additional District Judge vacated it on appeal. The High Court upheld this decision, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that the property was occupied by the petitioner's relatives as tenants rather than by the petitioner in his own right as a transferee. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that in the absence of a prima facie case, the petitioner was not entitled to injunctive relief. The petition was dismissed as the Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Is a petitioner entitled to a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance if they fail to establish a prima facie case?
- Can a court grant a temporary injunction to restrain dispossession when the petitioner is not in possession of the property in their own right?
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
NASIM HASSAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order dated 20- 6-1977 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Civil Revision No. 476 of 1977, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed in limine.
2. The relevant, facts are that the petitioner brought a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of 1/6th portion of certain immovable property situated in Sahiwal. According to him, Rs. 600 had been paid out of the total consideration of Rs. 16,000 fixed as the sale price, and a registered deed was executed in this behalf.
3. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner made an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C., for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from selling the property and also from dispossessing the petitioner. The trial Court granted the application and issued the temporary injunction asked for. The respondent went in appeal against the said order which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, and accepted by him with the result that the temporary injunction was vacated.
4. The petitioner then went up in revision before the Lahore High. Court and the learned Judge held that there was no stipulation in the agree--ment that the possession of the petitioner will not, in the future, be transferred, nor did it show that the petitioner was in occupation of the property on account of his own right as transferee. On the other hand, the property was, in fact, in occupation of the father and the uncle of the petitioner as tenants. It was further observed that even if the petitioner was deemed to be a tenant, it would not make any difference because he could be ejected by the Rent Controller if there were grounds for doing so. It was finally observed that if the petitioner was ejected and ultimately succeeded in the suit, he could be again put in possession under the decree.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, before us, are used that the petitioner was in possession of the property as a vendee and the balance of convenience lay in protecting his possession instead of allowing him to be ejected and then again put in possession, in the event of success of his suit.
6. According to the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge and the High Court, it has been found that the petitioner has no prima facie case and consequently was not entitled to the issuance of an injunction in his favour. On perusing the available record we concur with this conclusion and see no reason to interfere. This petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.