ALLAH BAKHSH and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This matter concerns civil petitions filed against the refusal of lower courts to grant an interim injunction in suits regarding possession of land. The petitioners claimed possession of disputed land under a temporary cultivation lease, which they alleged was extended by the Additional Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to an interim injunction to protect their possession of the land after the expiration of the lease period. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal right to retain possession of the land, as the initial five-year lease period, including any alleged extensions, had expired by the time the suits were instituted in 1999. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the lower courts' decisions to decline the temporary injunction. The principle laid down is that an interim injunction cannot be granted to protect possession where the underlying legal right to possess the property, such as a lease, has demonstrably expired, rendering the current possession illegal.
- Is a party entitled to an interim injunction to protect possession of land after the expiry of the lease period?
- Does the expiration of a lease period render continued possession of the leased land illegal for the purpose of seeking an interim injunction?
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide Civil Petitions Nos.178-L and 179-L of 2000 involving identical questions of law and facts.
In the suit filed by the petitioners, an application was made for issuance of interim injunction to protect their possession over the land in dispute. Their case was that the land in dispute was given to them on lease under the temporary cultivation scheme for a period of five years. The possession was not delivered to them because another person was occupying the same as trespasser. After the said land was vacated by him, the petitioners took over the land in the year 1994. The period of lease was five years. According to them, the period of lease was extended by the Additional Commissioner which too expired in 1999.
2. In the year 1999, the present suits were filed from which these petitions have arisen and the Courts below have declined to issue temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners, for their possession over the land at present and also at the time of institution of the suits was illegal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy us that the Courts below have committed any illegality in declining to issue temporary injunction, for the petitioners of their own showing at present have no right to retain possession over the land after the expiry of the lease period from the date of taking over of possession in the year 1994, for even the extended period has also expired.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.