Mst. FATIMA BIBI and others vs Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others
The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction regarding specific land, supported by an application for a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court initially granted an ad interim injunction, which was subsequently set aside by the Additional District Judge on appeal. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' civil revision, prompting this petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioners claimed they were in actual physical possession of the land, having operated a brick-kiln there for twenty years, and argued that the respondents' interference or potential alienation of the property would cause irreparable loss. The Supreme Court found the petitioners' claim of possession to be prima facie tenable. It held that allowing dispossession or alienation during the pendency of the suit would complicate matters and potentially lead to a multiplicity of civil and criminal proceedings. Consequently, the Court restored the trial court's original injunction order, determining that the balance of convenience favoured the petitioners.
- Does the operation of a long-standing business, such as a brick-kiln, on disputed land constitute prima facie evidence of possession sufficient to grant a temporary injunction?
- Can an appellate court set aside a trial court's grant of an ad interim injunction when the balance of convenience clearly favors the plaintiff?
- Does the potential for alienation of land during the pendency of a suit justify the issuance of a temporary injunction to prevent irreparable loss?
- Order 39 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order 39 Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' KHALIL-UL-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The petitioners herein brought a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Pasroor seeking a declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit 1 and in question described in paras. 3 and 4 of the plaint and seeking also a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and others from alienating the land in question or from interfering in the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs therein. This suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. Praying for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants and others from alienating the land in question or from interfering with the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs of the said suit land. Through an order dated 15-5-1998, the learned Civil Judge granted the ad interim injunction, as prayed.
2. The respondents before us questioned the said order by way of an appeal which appeal was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge at Pasroor through an order dated 13-2-1999 and resultantly the above mentioned order dated 15-5-1999 passed by a learned Civil Judge was set aside. The petitioners herein impugned the said Appellate order before the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No,265 of 1995 which petition was, however, dismissed on 6-4-1999.
3. Hence this petition under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution.
4. It is the case of the petitioners before us that they are the joint owners of the land in question; that they were in actual physical possession of a portion of the said suit land described in paras. 3 and 4 of the plaint (hereinafter called the suit land); that they had even put up a brick-kiln in the said suit land which was operating, therefore, the last about 20 years; that they were apprehending interference by the respondents with their possession of the said suit land and the said brick-klin; that they were further apprehending that the respondents will alienate the suit land in question which was then likely to cause irreparable loss to them; that the balance of convenience was in their favour and further that they had good prima facie which entitled them to the interim relief that they had sought.
5. It is the claim of the petitioners that they were in actual physical possession of the suit land wherein they had established a brick-klin which was in operation. We have not found it possible for us to hold the said claim of the petitioners to be untenable, at least prima facie. In this view of the matter any effort to dispossess the petitioners from the suit land or any alienation on the part of the respondents would only complicate things which might even lead to multiplicity of proceedings, civil and even criminal. The balance of convenience is thus in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs and the refusal of protection to the parties during the pendency of the suit in question could lead to irreparable loss.
6. Consequently, this petition is converted into appeal. The order, dated 6-4-1999 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No,265 of 1999 as also the order dated 13-2-1999 of the learned Additional District Judge at Pasroor are set aside restoring the order, dated 15-5-1998 of the learned Trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Cited by 1 case
- Muhammad Shafi vs Noor Nabi 2020 CLC 1480, 2020 LHC 1511