Thursday, November 19, 2009

Permanent Injuction

Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2002 Lahore High Court 1626
Appelant Side: ABDUL HAMEED KHAN and 2 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: FATEH BIBI and 6 others
Judge Name: ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 42-civil procedure code (v of 1908), s.loo-suit for declaration and permanent injunction with alternate relief of specific performance of agreement to sell claimed by plaintiffs against illiterate lady arid minor defendants-defendants have produced guardianship certificate which shows specified defendants to be minors at the time of execution of alleged agreement to sell-no body is allowed to sell property of minors without permission of court-mother of minor defendants was not appointed guardian of minors and no permission of selling land owned by minors was obtained by court-there being no valid agreement on behalf of minors, alleged agreement to sell to that extent was void-mother of minors being illiterate lady, onus to prove execution of agreement in question, was on plaintiffs who failed to prove the same-no attempt was made by plaintiffs to get thumb-impression of illiterate lady to be compared with her admitted thumb-impression-plaintiffs, thus, had miserably failed to discharge onus of proving execution of agreement to sell in their favour-concurrent finding of fact of courts below against plaintiff cannot be interfered with in second appeal-no question of law being involved, second appeal was not competent.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2002 Lahore High Court 1974
Appelant Side: ARSHAD ALI
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHAKARGARH and others
Judge Name: SYED JAMSHED ALI
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 115-suit for permanent injunction filed by petitioner pending-application for grant of temporary injuntion allowed by trial court-on appeal reversed by additional district judge-assailed in revision before high court on grounds that discretion exercised by civil court- illegally interferred with by adj-petitioner in possession and that even till partition he cannot be ejected from land being co-sharer and that jamabandi in his name~repelled held: it is doubtful whether such suit was competent against co-shares-the trial court wi'ongly exercised discretioitand also ignored subsequent events-revision dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2002 Lahore High Court 1974
Appelant Side: ARSHAD ALI
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHAKARGARH and others
Judge Name: SYED JAMSHED ALI
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 56-suit for permanent injunction-it was doubtful whether suit was maintainable against co-sharers.
Citation Name: PLJ 2002 Lahore High Court 163
Appelant Side: WAPDA through its CHAIRMAN, LAHORE and 2 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MAHBOOB ILAHI
Judge Name: CH. IJAZ AHMAD
Judgment Result:Appeal allowed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--o. 43 r. l(2)-suit for mandatory injunction-dismissal by trial court and also by first appellate court-remand of case by high court in appeal- suit decreed by trial court and order of addl. district judge seeking return of revision petition for presentation to proper court-challenged in high court by way of appeal-maintainability-converstion of appeal into revision or constitutional petition-concept and scope-court fee- determination in forum of appeal-high cjourt has ample power to convert appeal into revision or constitutional petition in interest of justice and fair play at any stage of proceedings-it is admitted fact that respondent filed suit for permanent injunction against appellants and affixed court fee for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction-it is settled law that forum of appea is to be etermined not on basis" of market value of land but it is to be determined on basis of value of original suit-held: appeal not maintainable order of addl. district judge set aside and appeal returned to petitioner for presentation to proper court-appeal accepted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2002 Lahore High Court 173
Appelant Side: Haji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 4 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD ABBAS (MINOR)
Judge Name: TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 54-suit for permanent injunction-apprehended danger to possession to land which was owned by plaintiff as per registered deed and revenue record-suit for permanent injunction was maintainable in circumstances.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 Cr.C 486
Appelant Side: TAHIR ZAMAN KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SADDAR, SHEIKHPURA and 4 others
Judge Name: DR. MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL
Judgment Result:Proceedings quashed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 561--quashment~prayer for-proceedings u/s. 145 cr.p.c.-a case in which a civil court is already seized with subject-matter of dispute and has passed an order regulating possession thereof or a case in which a decree for possession has been granted or a permanent injunction granted restraining opposite-party from interfering with possession of decree-holder falls outside jurisdiction of a magistrate under section 145, cr.p.c-action can, of course, be taken always under sections 107 and 151 of criminal procedure code to prevent breach of peace in a case of this nature, but no order for attachment of property can be made.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 261
Appelant Side: M/s. GULF PACIFIC FERTILIZER, 700 CHESTNUT STREET SAN CARLOS C.A. 9407, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A. through M
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: M/s. ALI AKBAR ENTERPRISES through its CHIEF EXECUTIVES MANAGING DIRECTOR and 2 others
Judge Name: SAYED JAMSHED An AND MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN
Judgment Result:Case remanded.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--o.vii, r. 11 & s. 96-rejection of plaint by trial court on sole ground that according to admitted document, dispute between parties has to be settled through arbitration-validity-rejection of plaint on the ground that contract contained arbitration clause was un-sustainable-effect of arbitration clause in agreement was that defendant could claim stay of proceedings in suit under s. 34 of arbitration act, 1940-defendant's plea that appellate court could substitute reason for rejection of plaint with another reason was although correct yet his further plea that there being no concluded contract between parties, plaint should be rejected on that ground, could not be accepted in as much as, question of contract being concluded would have to be decided on basis of evidence-impugned order to the extent of suit for permanent injunction was maintained while to the extent of suit for damages was set aside-suit to the extent of damages was remanded to trial court to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 1071
Appelant Side: NASEEM ZAFAR & 5 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its DIRECTOR GENERAL and another
Judge Name: CH. IJAZ AHMAD
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----0. 2. r. 2, 0. 23, r. 1(3) read with section 11--constitution of pakistan 1973). art. 199-acquisition of land-constitutional petition-main:ainability--appellant's predecessor-in-interest was allotted land and p.7.d. issued by settlement deptt-filed suit for permanent injunction restraining- respondents to interfere with his peaceful possession and after obtaining stay order from court withdrew suit unconditionally-writ petition against order of acquisition of land by respondent (lahore development authority)-validity-principle of constructive res-judicata--application of-it is admitted fact that predecessor-in-interest of petitioner had filed suit and subsequently withdrew same simplicitor- held : writ petition is not maintainable by virtue of order 23, rule 1(3) order 2, rule 2 read with s. 11 c.p.c.--held further : principle of constructive res-judicata is also attracted-petition dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 1256
Appelant Side: MATI ULLAH KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: YASEEN and another
Judge Name: MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 56-civil procedure code (v of 1908), s. 115--suit for permanent injunction-plaintiff as per statement of his own witnesses was not in possession of land in question-plaintiff being not in possession, his suit for-permanent possession was liable to be dismissed--plaintiffs suit having been rightly -dismissed by courts below, no interference in such finding was warranted in circumstances.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Supreme Court 485
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD AZAM
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: SAEE MUHAMMAD and another
Judge Name: ABDUR REHMAN KHAN RASHID AZtZ KHAN AND IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY
Judgment Result:Leave granted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-- art. 103-civil procedure code, 1908 (v of 1908), s. us-constitution of pakistan (1973), art. 185(3)--respondent's suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of house in question, was decreed by trial court--trial court's judgment and decree was reversed by appellate court-high court in revision restored judgment and decree of trial court while reversed that of appellate court-validity-leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in such like cases, evidence furnished by witness orally can preferably be accepted comparing to documentary evidence in pursuance of art. 103 of qanun-e-shahadat order, 1984 and revisional court in exercise of jurisdiction under s. 115 c.p.c. had jurisdiction to reverse finding recorded by appellate court while considering oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Quetta High Court 56
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD QASIM and 3 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ABDUL QADIR
Judge Name: FAZAL-UR-REHMAN
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 42--civil procedure code, 1908 (v of 1908) s. 115-limitation act, 1908 (ix of 1908), s. 28 & art. 144--suit for declaration and permanentinjunction filed by petitioners was dismissed by two courts below while parallel suit filed by respondent against petitioners was decreed by both courts below-validity-courts below have analysed evidence on record in its true perspective in recording its findings-high court cannot substitute conclusions which were concurrently and reasonably drawn by courts below by proper appreciation of evidence-where no error of law or defect in procedure had been committed in coming to finding of fact, high court cannot substitute such finding merely because different finding could be given on that material-petitioners could not point out any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in findings recorded by courts below-conclusion drawn by courts below were not contrary to law-doctrine of adverse possession has been declared to be repugnant to injunctions of islam-s. 28 of limitation act as also art. 144 there of have been omitted from the act-no interference in findings of courts below was warranted in circumstances.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Quetta High Court 79
Appelant Side: CHUTTA KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: GHULAM MUSTAFA and others
Judge Name: FAZAL-UR-REHMAN
Judgment Result:Case remanded.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 115-suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by petitioner- dismissal of by qazi dhadar-appeal before majlis-e-shoora sibi-appeal dismissed-challenge to-petitioner and his forefathers were cultivating lands of respondents-respondents tried to dispossess petitioner from land forcibly-held: that judgment in appeal could not be treated as proper and provisions of order xli, rule 31 of cpc were not complied with, case remanded.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Quetta High Court 82
Appelant Side: AASA
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: IBRAHIM
Judge Name: FAZAL-UR-REHMAN
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--o.xx, r. 5 & s. 115-conflicting judgments of courts below-trial court had decreed plaintiffs suit, while appellate court on basis of evidence on record dismissed plaintiffs suit-effect-where judgments of two courts below were at variance, view expressed by appellate court should ordinarily be preferred unless the same was contrary to evidence on record or in violation of settled principles of administration of justice- plaintiff (petitioner) could not point out that findings of fact recorded by appellate court were perverse, arbitrary or capricious-view taken by appellate court was supported by evidence while trial court had neither properly discussed evidence nor provisions of o.xx, r. 5 c.p.c. had been complied with-plaintiffs suit was for declaration and permanent injunctions while trial court had directed possession to be handed over to plaintiff-prima facie suit without seeking possession in the circumstances of case was not maintainable-appellate court had analysed evidence on record therefore, high court could substitute conclusion which was reasonably drawn by appellate court by proper appreciation of evidence-where no error of law or defect in procedure had been committed in coming to finding of fact, high court cannot substitute such finding merely because different finding could be given- petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional defect in impugned judgment and decree of appellate court or any irregularity or illegality warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction-judgmentof appellate court whereby petitioner's suit was dismissed was maintainable in circumstances.
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 455
Appelant Side: MUZAFFAR ALI KHAN ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (HORTICULTURAL) L.D.A LAHORE
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through DIRECTOR GENERAL
Judge Name: IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 9-constitution of pakistan (1973), art. 199-civil servant-deputation-repatriation-civil servant being permanent employee was on deputation to lahore development authority wherein he was permanently absorbed-civil servant was afterward repatriated to his parent department--validity-civil servant after absorption became permanent employee of lahore development authority-therefore, order of repatriation was without jurisdiction, void and passed without applying mind to facts, therefore, liable to be set aside-civil servant (petitioner) had vested right to continue in lahore development authority after permanent absorption-civil servant, in any case, was entitled to hearing and show-cause notice before any order adverse to his service career was pas=ed--0rder of civil servant's absorption having been acted upon, respondent's have lost locus paenitentiae-civil servant continued on bisis of injunction order in lahore development authority till he retired from service-civil servant having been absorbed in lahore development authority on permanent basis became employee of the authority and ceise-d to be employee of punjab government, therefore, he could not be repatr-ated-civil servant being employee of authority was entitled to pension and other benefits-authority was directed to settle claim of petitioner 'civil servant) expeditiously.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 701
Appelant Side: KAURA etc.
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ALLAH DITTA etc.
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 115-punjab muslim personal law shariat application act, 1948-limitation act, 1908 art. 120--suit for declaration and permanent injunction-decreed by trial court-affirmed in appeal-challenge to-inheritance, transfer of land to defendant-limitation, framing of proper issue and mutation under customary law-question of law and facts-determination of-petitioner, during trial had not objected to framing of wrong issue or not framing issue in accordance with objections raised in written statement -if they failed to raise objection in trial court or to appellate court, their objection could not be raised at revisional stage-it was incompetent on petitioners to establish on record that customary law was applicable to their tribe and daughter was deprived of inheritance of her father-there is no such evidence that deceased "l" had acquired land under any custom-he was already full owner of land-when inheritance was opened, "p" and "m" were alive at time of enforcement of punjab muslim personal law shariat application act, 1948-word "deceased" is used for determination of dispute and deceased in instant case was "l" therefore, last male holder of property was "l" predecessor-in-interest of party-plaintiff being legal heir of deceased "l" is co-sharer and co-owner of property in case of decree of suit, her name would be entered in column of ownership of suit land and revenue record would be corrected accordingly and all others subsequent mutations sanctioned after mutation of inheritance of deceased "l" be reviewed automatically-right of plaintiff in inheritance of her father is continuous right and under art. 120 of limitation act, time for filing suit for declaration will start when right to sue accrued to plaintiff, while right was denied by defendants/petitioners and they refused to pay battai-every denial of right would furnish plaintiff a fresh cause of action-plaintiff "t" was deprived of inheritance of her father vide mutation of inheritance which was not legal and proper and entire structure built on it would crumble and limitation would not be hurdle in way of plaintiff-plaintiff in such case is presumed to be co-sharer being legal heir of "l" deceased and shall be presumed to be in possession of suit property alongwith other co- owner-held : court below have committed no illegality-petition dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 732
Appelant Side: EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: UMAR DIN
Judge Name: MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ,
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 115 read with ss. 2(h) and 8 of evacuee trust property (management and disposal) act, 1975-land possessed by respondent as allottee/transferee of provincial government under cattle breading scheme-evacuee trust property board/petitioner interferred with possession-a suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent- petitioner resisted suit on ground that land is owned by it and civil court has no jurisdiction-suit decreed-appeal filed by petitioner dismissed- challenge to-whether civil court had jurisdiction or not-question of- petitioner was required first to prove that property was evacuee and then to show that it is a property attached to some charitable religious or education trust-under section 8 of said act question which could be determined by chairman is "whether an evacuee property is ttached to a trust or institution or not? " apparently chairman has no jurisdiction to decide question as to whether property is evacuee or not-regarding evacuee property law is well settled that jurisdiction to determine existance'of facts giving jurisdiction to a special tribunal lies with courts of plenary jurisdiction i.e. civil courts-property is recorded to be owned by provincial government both before and after partition of sub continent-nothing was brought on record to prove that property was evacuee-it was only when property was proved to be an evacuee that further question of its being attached to some religious or other trust could arise-there is, thus, no occasion for decision of question involved- civil revision dismissed-

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 807
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD SHARIF etc.
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: TIPPU SULTAN ete.
Judge Name: MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 115-specific relief act, 1877 (i of 1877), s. 54--suit for permanent injunction-petitioners set up two heavy electric press and two electric motors for manufacturing footballs causing violent vibration shaking foundation of houses-suit dismissed by trial court, decreed by appellate court holding that noise and vibration produced by football manufacturing machines interfered with civic amenities of respondents-appeal against-almost house of petitioner is at distance of 10 to 11 feet from house of respondent-petitioner had installed two foot-ball pressing machines which were run by two electric motors-there is sufficient evidence on record that working of these machines created so much noise that it interfered with comfort and amenities of life in house of respondents/plaintiffs-one of defendants, appeared as dw-l-he even could not controvert that aforesaid machines created vibrations and very abnormal noise-appellate court was eminently correct and justified in coming to conclusion that noise and vibration created by machines installed in house of petitioners were so abnormal and intense that it constituted perennial actionable private nuisance-it caused physical and mental discomfort to occupants of house and affected structure of respondents/plaintiffs house-held: view taken by appellate court is just, correct and does not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal error calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction by high court-petition totally devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed with costs.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 909
Appelant Side: SHAMIM AKHTAR
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-ss. 2(a) & 6-civil procedure code, 1908 (v of 1908), s. 115 & o.vii, r. 11-dismissal of pre-emption suit on the ground that property in question, being immovable urban property was situated within cantonment limits and, thus, not pre-emptible in terms of s. 2(a), punjab pre-emption act, 1991-validity-sale in question, took place on 17.8.1993; suit was instituted on 16.12.1993; on both such dates urban immovable property or property situated within antonment limits, was ot pre-emptible as section 2(a) punjab pre-emption act, 1991 as attracted to such property--judgment of supreme court (plj 1994 sc 221) had declared provision of section 2(a) punjab pre-emption act, 1991 being repugnant to injunctions of islam to the extent that the same excluded all urban properties and property situated within cantonment limits, permanently from the application of the act and made its judgment effective from 31.12.1993-supreme court had not made effective its judgment retrospectively which means that right of pre mption on urban immovable property and property situated within cantonment limit, was available with effect from 31.12.1993 and not on 17.8.1993 when sale took place and on 16.12.1993, when suit was instituted, plaint was thus, rightly rejected by courts below-no illegality in impugned judgment, having been pointed out, no interference was warranted in the same.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for permanent injunction
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 1362
Appelant Side: MUMTAZ HUSSAIN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: FAIZ ULLAH and others
Judge Name: CH. IJAZ AHMAD
Judgment Result:Revision accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-ss. 42 & 18-civil procedure code 1908 (v of 1908), s. 115-suit for declaration of title on basis of agreement to sell-agreement to sell could not create any interest in property in question, even if presumed to be genuine-judgment, of courts below is dismissing plaintiffs suit was, thus, in accordance with provisions of s. 42, specific relief act, 1877--plaintiffs only remedy was to file suit for specific performance of contract as envisaged by s. 18 of specific relief act, 1877--plaintiff, however, would be well within his right to compel vendee for enforcement of agreement but court below did not consider such aspect of case-courts below have given concurrent findings of fact that agreement to sell was executed by one of the defendant on his own behalf and on behalf of other defendants as their attorney and that he had received specified amount at the time of registration of agreement to sell-such fact would bring plaintiffs case in area of equity, thus, courts below were empowered to grant such relief as justice of case demanded and for purpose of determining relief asked for whole of plaint must have been looked into so that substance rather than form should be examined as per dictates of o. viii, r. 7 c.p.c.-impunged judgments were set aside, case was remanded to trial court with direction that permanent injunction be treated as suit for specific performance with permission to plaintiff to amend plaint subject to payment of specified amount-trial court after receiving amended pleadings from parties, framing additional issue,opportunity of evidence to parties, decide the suit in accordance with law

2 comments: