Permanent Injuction

Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Karachi High Court 1
Appelant Side: ABDUL GHAFOOR
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Syed JAWED HUSSAIN JAFFERY and another
Judge Name: Faisal Arab
Judgment Result:Suit decreed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 14--civil procedure code (v of 1908), o.viii, r. 10--suit for damages--determination of damages--principles--publication of libellous and defamatory material in newspapers--duty of journalist, and publishers--plaintiff filed a suit for damages against defendants, editor and publisher, and printer, for publishing defamatory reports against plaintiff--allegations levelled against him and his family members were baseless, calculated to harm his good professional name and ridicule him in the eyes of public and bankers at large--plaintiff claimed damages to the tune of one hundred millions rupees and sought permanent injunction against defendants--validity--defendants did not put up any defence nor filed written statement and entire case of plaintiff went unchallenged--responsibility lay upon news reporter, journalist and publisher of a newspaper or periodical, to steer clear of prejudices and perversions and publish stories after due verification so that only truth was exposed and nothing else--any false story published in newspapers was bound to humiliate and harm the goodwill and reputation of person targetted by such publication--publication of accusatory and defamatory news items and stories without necessary verification was not only to be regarded as irresponsible professional conduct but if challenged in a court of law the same was to be visited with monitary damages as well as restraint orders so that such conduct was discouraged and not repeated again--unsubstantiated libellous material written or published against a person was not to be allowed to go unpunished--art. 14 of the constitution recognized and protected a right of a person that his dignity was not to be violated--whenever a cause with regard to hurt or humiliation was brought before a civil court, it was bounden duty of court to examine the allegations and if court found them false and malicious or tainted with bad faith then defendant had to be visited with civil liability of compensating the plaintiff monetarily--basis of quantifying damages to the extent claimed by plaintiff though had neither been given in plaint nor in affidavit in ex parte proof, but in case of defamation it was not necessary that exact amount of damages be determined through evidence--plaintiff had to simply establish defamation and quantum of damages was to follow by applying rule of thumb--quantum of damages in defamation cases was to be determined by one of the considerations that it was commensurate with financial strength of wrongdoer and position which the person wronged held in society--financial position of defendant though did not come' on record but keeping in view the social standing of plaintiff and applying rule of thumb, rupees ten millions were determined as damages recoverable jointly and severally against defendants--suit was decreed.
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 201
Appelant Side: SHAHID MEHMOOD
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: BANK AL-FALAH LTD. through its Manager Sheikhupura
Judge Name: Mian Hamid Farooq & Umar Ata Bandial
Judgment Result:Appeal allowed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 9, 10(11) & 21--law reforms ordinance (xii of 1972), s. 10--suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and seeking superdari of vehicle was filed--application for leave to defend the suit was dismissed--both application dismissed and suit disposed of being not "proceedable"--approach of judge banking court in simultaneously dismissing applications without assigning any reason was not recognized under the law and was complete departure from the procedure--appellant should have been granted opportunity to prove the case either through documentary or oral evidence or both--if financial institution filed a suit against a customer and application for leave to defend the suit was dismissed, then banking court might pass a decree in favour of the bank as the suit was based on negotiable instruments--in the present case, suit was not based on negotiable instruments, it could not be straightway decreed or dismissed, without affording an opportunity to the party to produce evidence in support of his claim.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 1050
Appelant Side: SALAMAT ALI etc
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: KHAIR-UD-DIN etc
Judge Name: Jawwad S. Khawaja
Judgment Result:Petition allowed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----o. vii, r. 11--rejection of plaint--suit for declaration--question of--mutation of inheritance--time barred--fully awareness of inheritance--entitlement to relief--discretion of court--respondents were not only fully aware of the inheritance mutation but had also challenged it before the revenue forums--provisions of limitation act--respondents cannot be allowed to impugn the title which has been enjoyed by petitioners for a continuous period of more than 31 years--held: respondents are not entitled to relief by way of declaration and permanent injunction because such reliefs are in the discretion of court and can rightly be denied in appropriate cases--petition allowed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Karachi High Court 132
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD SALEEM
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. FARIDA SALEEM and 3 others
Judge Name: Gulzar Ahmed
Judgment Result:Application allowed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 39, 42 & 54--civil procedure code, (v of 1908), ss. 151 & 152---suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of gift-deed--application for amendment of consent decree--defendant on terms among others that suit property would be sole and exclusive property of defendant and that defendant would not alienate, transfer or encumber property in-question or create any charge thereon during her life time--decree was drawn on said terms--parties through their application had sought deletion of the terms that "defendant would not alienate, transfer"--compromise decree was passed by the court on agreement of parties whereby parties were at liberty to have it amended or modified by their mutual consent--sanctity was attached to a decree passed by court and provisions of civil procedure code, provided for the situation where a decree could be sought to be amended or modified or even altogether set aside, for example by review, revision, appeal, on application under ss. 12(2) or u/s. 152 of civil procedure code--defendant was a sole and exclusive owner of property, she in law had a right to deal with it in any manner she considered appropriate--defendant, in doing so, had right to alienate, transfer, encumber or create charge on the property--clog under the terms of consent decree, could not justifiably be put on exercising such right by defendant--bar contained in said clause of the agreement would either be redundant or not in accordance with law--provisions of section 151, c.p.c. whereunder application was filed for amendment of decree by deleting the clause therein, were attracted to circumstances of the case whereby inherent power of the court could justifiably be invoked to meet the ends of justice and to amend or modify consent decree by mutual agreement of parties--application was allowed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Karachi High Court 302
Appelant Side: ALLAH DINO
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: HAJI AHMED through LEGAL HEIRS and 3 others
Judge Name: Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari
Judgment Result:Application dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----o. viii. r. 10--suit for declaration and permanent injunction--on failure of party to file written statement within the time fixed by the court--effect--court may pronounce judgment against such party, or make such order in relation to the suit as. it thinks fit--order viii, r. 10, c.p.c. clearly demonstrates that in every case in which written statement is not filed, the court is not bound or required to pronounce the judgment as it is not stipulated by the law--by using word "may" in o.viii, r.10, c.p.c., it has been left open to the court, that on consideration of the material annexed with the plaint, either it should pronounce the judgment or may make such other order it deems fit--court has to take into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case and keeping in view the circumstances the court may make such order as it thinks fit.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Karachi High Court 302
Appelant Side: ALLAH DINO
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: HAJI AHMED through LEGAL HEIRS and 3 others
Judge Name: Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari
Judgment Result:Application dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 42 & 55--civil procedure code, (v of 1908), o. viii, r. 10--suit for declaration and permanent injunction--ex-parte proceedings against defendants--plaintiff filed application wherein he requested the court to dispose of the suit under o.viii, r.10, c.p.c. and reason stated in the application for passing the judgment by trial court was that the plaint was verified on oath--application further stated that plaintiff was ill and, as such, ex parte proof could not be filed--plaintiff did not request for extension of time--validity--prudent view which could be taken was that the applicant/plaintiff himself did not want to file affidavit in ex-parte proof and wanted his suit to be disposed of under o.viii, r.10, c.p.c.--when the plaintiff himself prayed the court to proceed to pronounce the judgment without producing any evidence or documents, the trial court was justified in arriving at a conclusion that the documents placed on record were inadmissible in evidence--plaintiff, who approached the court had to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the other side--merely because the defendants were proceeded ex parte, ipso facto, would not be legal and valid ground to decree the suit of the plaintiff as it was the plaintiff who had to prove his case

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Peshawar High Court 300
Appelant Side: GHULAM SAMDANI and others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: FAQIR KHAN
Judge Name: Ijaz-ul-Hassan
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----o. xli, r. 31 & s. 115--suit for grant of permanent injunction was dismissed--appeal accepted--assailed--there was no misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, which could render the findings of appellate court unworthy or illegal.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Quetta High Court 103
Appelant Side: HAZRAT ZUBAIR OBAID UR REHMAN FAROOQI
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: CAPT. FAREEDUDDIN & 4 others
Judge Name: Ahmad Khan Lashari
Judgment Result:Order accordingly
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 42--civil procedure code, (v of 1908)--s. 115 & o. vi, r. 17--suit for declaration--dismissed by courts below--assailed--matter referred to the referee judge--validity--suit was barred by law, thus proceedings with the consequential relief was not maintainable--suit for declaration if not found to be maintainable the plaintiff would not be entitled to equitable right to grant of decree of permanent injunction--suit which is incompetent, no because of any formal, technical or curable defect but because of an express or implied embargo imposed upon it under the law, would not be allowed to further number legal proceedings--contents of plaint that the petitioners filed suit seeking performance of agreement but they filed suit for declaration which was not maintainable in present form, but was curable after removing the defect--trial court did not frame issue on the point but decided it against the petitioners--courts below fell in error by not directly the petitioners for the amendment and illegally dismissed the suit--referee judge agreed with the observations made by mr. justice akhtar zaman malghani to extent of remand and impugned judgments being not sustainable in eyes of law.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Peshawar High Court 190
Appelant Side: MEHR NISA WIDOW
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 3 others
Judge Name: Shah Jahan Khan Yousafzai
Judgment Result:Revision accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----rule of evidence--suit for possession of property and permanent injunction--question of law--burden of proof lies with reference to the possession of landed property--burden of proof was not on the defendant to substantiate her title when she already in possession of the same with the belief of ownership for more than 12 years--possession is 9 points out of 10 and it shall be always the burden of claimant who is out of possession to establish his title and possession--revision accepted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1424
Appelant Side: NASEEM-E-SEHAR
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mrs. JABEEN IDREES etc.
Judge Name: Syed Hamid Ali Shah
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----o. xxxix, rr. 1 & 2, o. xi, r. 1 & s. 10--essential requirement for purchase of property--respondent instituted a suit against the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction and then filed another suit against appellant for possession and recovery of damages--in subsequent suit respondent filed two applications one under o.xxxix, rr. 1 & 2 and another for appointment of receiver--appellant filed an application u/s. 10 c.p.c. for stay fo procedings--trial court without deciding applications passed impugned order--held: there is no impediment in entertaining interlocutory application for temporary injunction and for appointment of receiver, in a subsequent suit only trial of the suit is to be stayed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1466
Appelant Side: FLEX-O-SIGN through its MANAGING DIRECTOR, LAHORE
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: LIAQAT ALI CHAUDHRY and another
Judge Name: Syed Hamid Ali Shah
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 23--civil procedure code (v of 1908), s. 114--fresh period of limitation--respondent filed suit for permanent injunction and defendant/petitioner took the plea that the suit is time barred--held: fresh period of limitation starts from the refusal and the suit of respondent was within period of limitation.
Citation Name: PLJ 2005 SC-AJ&K 26
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD AFSAR
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD ZAMAN and 4 others
Judge Name: Khawaja Muhammad Saeed, ACJ and
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----o. 7, r. 3--o. 39, rr. 1 & 2--suit for permanent injunction--respondent was not actual owner but was shown to be in possession of a portion of 8 kanal out of total 234 kanals 2 marlas land--no specification or discription was given about the suit land in the plaint--held: plaint was vague and so was rightly dismissed by high court

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Cr.C 658
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD SHARIF
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: STATE
Judge Name: ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA
Judgment Result:Bail granted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 498--offence of zina (enforcement of hudood) ordinance 1979, s. 10-- pre-arrest bail-ma/a/zde implication-record showed that fir regarding commission of theft against complainant and both eye witnesses had already been filed by petitioner-besides, a civil suit for permanent injunction against the same persons alongwith a contempt application were also pending adjudication-during pendency of that civil suit and criminal litigation, present fir was lodged against petitioner-site plan prepared by i.o. was not explanatory-medico legal not indicating any injury on any part of victims body-chemical examiners report regarding vaginal swabs was also negative-victims, a married woman of 35 years having 5 children while accused an aged man of 55/60 years having 7 children-no independent eye-witness except the two already having anmity with accused-case was seemed to be of malafide irnplication- ' high court granted bail, before arrest.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 567
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD MALIK and 4 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MANSOOR SIDDIQUE and 4 others
Judge Name: M. AKHTAR SHABBIR
Judgment Result:Revision accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
- o.xxi, r. 32 & s. 115--suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating and raising construction on property in question was decreed on consenting statement of defendants-defendants started selling away some specific portion of land in violation of judgment and decree which had attained finality-plaintiff s initiated action against defendants under 0. xxi, r. 32 c.p.c. which was dismissed by courts below-legality-defendant having sold portion of land in question, and having started construction on a part thereof thus, violated judgment and decree of court restraining them not to do so till partition thereof, provisions of o.xxi, r. 32 c.p.c. were very much attracted-courts below having misconstrued provisions of o.xxi, r. 32 c.p.c., their order of dismissal of plaintiffs lis was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 771
Appelant Side: J. MEHMOOD ALI and 4 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. NAZIRAN BIBI and 10 others
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD' MUZAMMAL KHAN
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 115, 151, revision-suit fdr declaration with permanent injunction- first appellate court dismissed suit of petitioners-challenge to- controversial pleadings of parties-appraisal of evidence-in absence of respondents who were transferees through a joint sale deed, claimed that they had no notice of the mutation in question, suit of petitioners, could not have been decreed-respondents did not appeal against judgment and decree passed by trial court, appellate court could not reverse it without any substance-petition dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 832
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: SHAHBAZ and 21 others
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-o.vii, r.ll-specific relief act (i of 1877), s. 42-earlier suit decreed on basis of compromise-competency to file fresh suit-where decree was passed in suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein some reciprocal exchange of land was agreed to be made in compromises discharge of respective obligations under that decree by a fresh suit cannot be held to be barred.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 994
Appelant Side: NAWAB KHAN deceased through His Legal Representatives
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: AHMAD KHAN and others
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-o. xxxix, rr. 1 & 2, s. 115-revisional jurisdiction-suit for permanent injunction-dismissal by trial court-appeal also failed before addl. distt. judge-challenged to-raising of construction on joint property-changed of nature of agricultural land-validity-copy ' of khasra girdwari produced by petitioner themselves shows that khasra number subject of suit are not agricultural in nature but have been recorded as "ghair mumkan ahata" and "house" land subject of litigation is already constructed and undeniably in possession of respondents, as co-shares- predecessor of petitioner had earlier filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was withdrawn on 28.7.1998 and present suit.was filed before withdrawal on 24.7.1998 yet its institution was not mentioned which shows that petitioner did not approach court with clean hands and only want undo construction of respondents, one way or other-petitioner if are really aggrieved of action mentioned in plaint may have resort to partition proceedings and have their shares separated-held: judgments of two courts helow are absolutely in consonance with evidence on life which has not been shown to have misread or non-read in absence of which no interference is permissible under law-revision petition has no substance in it and is accordingly dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 1111
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN and 2 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD KHAN and 9 others
Judge Name: MANSOOR AHMAD
Judgment Result:Revision petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 115-civil revision-concurrent findings of facts-petitioner filed suit for declaration to the effect that petitioner or collateral of sikandar khan died issuless-they were owner of 3/4 share of the state left by him~a decree for separate possession through partition and permanent injunction was also sough-held: court below rightly decided the issues and do not call for interference-revision petition was dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 1206
Appelant Side: BASHIR
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SARGODHA and 2 others
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN
Judgment Result:Petition accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-ss. 16 & 30(2)-suit for delcaration-resumption of land-respondent no. 4 was allotted land-after acquiring proprietary rights he transferred same to petitioner by sale-member (colonies) board of revenue cancelled allotment on ground that land fall within prohibited areas was also out come of fraud and misrepresentation-suit filed by petitioner for permanent injunction decreed by trial court, set aside in appeal by addl. district judge-validity-proviso to s. 16 of act, 1912, conferring jurisdiction on respondent no. 2 to scrutinize tenancy/lessee rights under act-case of petitioner did not relate to tenancy rights, thus respondent no. 2 was equipped with no authority to cancel allotment after receipt of price and execution of sale deed-undisputedly, power u/s 30(2) of act were given to respondent no. 2 which could not have been delegated by him but he, admittedly, did not hold any inquiry and after passing order of cancellation, remitted case to its subordinates for that purpose-course adopted by respondent no. 2 was no permissible under law-no concrete proof of fraud or misrepresentation and thus even if it be assumed that he had authority to cancel allotment of petitioner, being no proof of pre-requisites, order resuming land of petitioner is-- respondent no. 2 having himself acted contrary to provisions of s. 30(2) of act, his order is ultra vires of this provision of law-presumption is that acts done by statutory functionaries were done in good faith and in lawful manner-under principle of locus poenitentia, respondents were not justified to act in complained manner to cancel land of petitioner- provision of notice of hearing before cancellation was statutory provision that lawful transferee, held to be so concurrently by courts below, was entitled notice as well as hearing before order by respondent no. 2-- held: appellate order is not only tainted with illegalities, but also runs counter to law applicable, hence same is not sustainable-appellate judgment and decree passed by district judge set aside and that of civil judge revived.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 1341
Appelant Side: CANTONMENT BOARD RWAWALPINDI, through its EXECUTIVE OFFICER
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mrs. ASMA MUNAWAR and anothers
Judge Name: MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ
Judgment Result:Revision disposed of.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
...s. 53-civil procedure code, 1908 (v of 1908), o.xxxix, r. 1 & 2-suit for permanent injunction restraining from causing demolition or construction and interference-plaint was rejected-appeal accepted- challenge to-held: this of course is beyond the power under s. 53 of specific relief act as also order xxxix cpc because a new situation vis a-vis the property in suit cannot be allowed to be created under protection of stay order or injunction-trial court to proceed further with suit and to decide within six month of receipt of order and meanwhile both parties to maintain status qua suit property order is accordingly disposed of.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 SC-AJ&K 168
Appelant Side: C.J. ABDUL AZIZ
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ABDUL HAMEED and 10 others
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
s. 42~suit for declaration cum perpetual injunction-courts helow decreed suit to extent of ownership and held that plaintiff failed to prove possession of suit land-second appeal by respondent was accepted~a declaratory suit without consequential relief was not maintainable u/s. 42 of specific relief act-ground of~held: permanent injunction o can only be granted in these cases in which the possession of property or suit land vests with plaintiff but in instant use, it is an admitted fact that petitioner was not in possession of suit land and as such a mere declaratory suit was not competent under law-petition dismissed.
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 1542
Appelant Side: NOOR SHAH GULL KHAN & another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: HAZRAT GULL KHAN
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 115--revision~concurrent finding of facts by courts below-suit for declaration with permanent injunction-dismissal by trial court, decision upheld in appeal-validity-respondent claiming himself to be owner in possession of property in dispute filed suit for declaration with permanent injunction to effect that he is owner of property and petitioners be restrained from claiming any title therein-under law such suit is not bad and respondent was not required relief of possession and . as such his suit is not hit by section 42 of specific relief act, 1877-since petitioners could not prove lawful sale in their favour by paying price of land and transfer of possession under it, suit of respondent was rightly decreed--held: both courts below returned concurrent findings of facts which are neither asserted nor are proved to ha.ve been given out .of misreading or non-reading of evidence-held further. no illegality or irregularity was committed by courts below, in absence of which, no interference is permissible in revisional jurisdiction of high coxirt-- petition dismissed

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2003 Karachi High Court 127
Appelant Side: SAGHIR AHMED through Legal Heirs.
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. ZAKRA BEGUM
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 12-suit for specific performance-sale agreement was a forged document-record had revealed that plaintiff had filed another suit on subject claiming only for permanent injunction and in that suit he had not made any prayer for specific performance of said agreement to sell property-plaintiff had been paying rent to defendant and had .also enhanced the monthly rent in a compromise in court-plaintiff had also failed to prove alleged part payment of price of property to owner of property-both courts below, in circumstances, had rightly dismissed suit and appeal of plaintiff.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2003 Peshawar High Court 240
Appelant Side: HAJI FAREED KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MAMOON-UR-RASHID KHAN and others
Judge Name: IJAZ-UL-HASSAN,
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-0. vii, r. 11 & ss. 9 & 115-suit for permanent injunction and recovery of specified damages-objection to jurisdiction of civil court and prayer for rejection of plaint on that ground was rejected-legality-facts and circumstances of case and reliefs claimed in suit would indicate that trial court was quite justified to hold that civil court was possessed of juiisdiction to entertain suit-environmental tribunals have although been constituted to deal with matters of environmental pollution etc. yet in view of reliefs claimed in plaint including recovery of damages etc. civil court was possessed of jurisdiction and trial court justifiably rejected defendants application for rejection of plaint-impugned order being unexceptipnal hardly requires interference in revisional jurisdiction.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2003 Lahore High Court 163
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD AZAM and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADMINISTRATOR, MARKET COMMITTEE, MULTAN and another
Judge Name: FARRUKH LATEEF
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-0. xli, r. 31 and s. us-specific relief act (i of 1877), s. 42-issuewise finding not recorded by appellate court-effect-issues relating to alleged illegality of notice to vacate premises and entitlement of petitioners to decree of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property in question, entirely depended on the fate of issue relating to plaintiffs status as tenant under defendant-finding of appellate court that plaintiffs had failed to prove their tenancy was sufficient to non-suited them and separate findings need not have been recorded on such connected issues.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2002 Peshawar High Court 54
Appelant Side: AWAL KHAN and 3 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MALIK AMAN and 23 others
Judge Name: IJAZ-UL-HASSAN
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 42--civil procedure code, (v of 1908), s. 115-plaintiffs claim of ownership and permanent injunction pertaining to land in question was rejected by appellate court-validity-record indicated that defendants were occupancy tenants till 1947 but after promulgation of s. 5 of tenancy act, 1950, they were conferred proprietary rights on deposit of specified amount-plaintiffs having failed to object to commission report at the relevant time before trial court could not object to the same before high court during argument in revision-objections to finding of appellate court on issues of limitation, adverse possession and alleged omission of appellate court to give finding on all issues were repelled, in as much as, all material on such issues had been discussed and reasons advanced-plaintiffs could not point out any misread! ng> non-reading or misconstruction of evidence on record-no interference was, thus, warranted in judgment and decree of appellate court dismissing plaintiff s suit.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2002 Lahore High Court 1113
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD DIN and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MAYOR, LAHORE METROPOLITAN CORPORATION LAHORE and 2 others
Judge Name: IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDDRY
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-.-art. 199--filing of civil suits by petitioners for permanent injunction and their dismissal subsequently cannot be a bar in issuance of writ, when new questions have been raised in writ petitions.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2002 Lahore High Court 1521
Appelant Side: ALLAH DITTA and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ZAHOOR AHMED
Judge Name: PARVEZ AHMAD
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--o. xxxlx, rr. 1, 2 & s. 115--ad-interim injunction was allowed in plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction-legality-copy of khasra girdawari showed plaintiff being in possession-correction of such entry was not made till the disposal of application for temporary injunction- sale of land effected by one of co-sharers in favour of plaintiff indicated that question of balance of convenience and of irreparable loss was in favour of plaintiff-there being concurrent findings of fact in favour of plaintiff, no scope for interference through exercise of revisional jurisdiction was-made out.

To view full case click on Full Case Description