ALLAH DITTA and another vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an application for a temporary injunction filed alongside a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from using an internal passage leading to a Chah (well) situated in Killa No. 40/7. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction, which decision was subsequently affirmed by the First Appellate Court and further upheld by the Lahore High Court in revision. The core legal issue was whether the petitioners had successfully made out a prima facie case and established grounds justifying interference with concurrent discretionary orders denying interim injunctive relief. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners failed to plead ownership of the relevant land in their plaint or prove that the Chah had been abandoned or that the respondent lacked rights to use the passage. Holding that concurrent discretionary orders passed in accordance with established principles governing temporary injunctions warrant no interference, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether an applicant who fails to establish a prima facie case or ownership rights is entitled to a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent discretionary orders refusing a temporary injunction where such orders align with established legal principles?
- Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Application for issuance of temporary injunction filed by the petitioners alongwith the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent to use exclusively internal passage to reach Chah which is situated in Killa No,40/7 was dismissed by the trial Court which order was upheld in appeal filed by them before the First Appellate Court. Both these orders have further been confirmed by the learned Judge of the Lahore High. Court through the judgment impugned in this petition dated 17-11-1998 whereby revision petition has been dismissed
2. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, the petitioners did not claim that land comprising Killa No,40/7 in which the said Chah is situated was owned by them. It was also not pleaded that Killa No,40/6 was also owned by them which was adjacent to the said killa. According to the entries in the Revenue Record, uptil today, the said Chah is present at the spot whereas according to the case made out by the petitioners in the plaint the same had been abandoned long time ago.
3. All the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the petitioners had failed to establish existence of prima facie case for issuance of temporary injunction, it was not made out that the respondent was not the owner of the land in which Chah was situated and that the Chah had already been abandoned or that the respondent had no right to approach the said Chah from the said internal passage which the petitioners want to use exclusively.
4. No case has been made out for interference by this Court in the well-reasoned discretionary order passed by the Courts below which are strictly in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior Courts relating to issuance of temporary injunction. Reference may be made to the case of Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 SC 139).
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.