Direct High Court Case on Interim Injunction in Land Dispute Between Residents and Housing Society
 |
| Stay order |
اہم نکات – عبوری روک (Stay Order / Interim Injunction):
1. قانونی بنیاد:
2. عدالتی اختیار:
3. فیصلہ سازی
4. ممکنہ قانونی نقطہ نظر
5. انٹرا کورٹ اپیل
Must read judgement
2025 C L C 151
[Sindh]
Before Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Arbab Ali Hakro, JJ
MUHAMMAD YAHYA and others---Appellants
Versus
PROVINCE OF SINDH and others---Respondents
High Court Appeals Nos.321 and 322 of 2024, decided on 8th October, 2024.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration and injunction---Interim injunction, refusal of---Appellate Court, jurisdiction of---Cross cases---Two suits were filed regarding suit land, one filed by appellants / residents of Society and the other by respondents / Housing Society---Judge in Chambers of High Court (as Trial Court) granted interim injunction in favour of respondents / Housing Society and dismissed application filed by appellants / residents of Society and declined to restrain respondent / Housing Society from raising construction---Validity---Where on consideration of respective cases of parties and documents laid before it, the Court of first instance grants or refuses an injunction, an Appellate Court ought not to interfere with the exercise of discretion unless such exercise is found to be palpably incorrect or untenable---As long as view of Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court ought not to interfere with the same---Reasons that weighed with Trial Court were grounded in law and did not indicate that the view taken for granting injunction on the application of respondent / Housing Society while withholding the same on the application of appellants / residents of Society was capricious or untenable---All relevant points arising for consideration were addressed by Judge in Chambers of High Court, while properly weighing the matter in light of relevant test for determining whether or not case was made out for interlocutory injunction---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court as discretion was exercised judiciously and it was not open on appeal to substitute the view in that regard---Intra-Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Roomi Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Stafford Miller Ltd. and others 2005 CLD 1805; Syed Hamid Mir through Attorney and another v. Board of Revenue Sindh through Member/Secretary Land Utilization Department and 9 others 2021 YLR 1629; Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited v. Province of Sindh and others SBLR 2024 Sindh 32; Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton [1983] 1 A.C. 191 and Garden Cottage Ltd. v. Milk Marketing Board (1984) 1 A.C. 130 rel.
Rizwana Ismail for Appellants, along with Noor Muhammad.
Munir A. Malik and Ch. Atif Rafique, for the Cutchi Memon Housing Society.
Ali T. Ebrahim for Nixor College (Private) Limited.
Khursheed Javed for the KDA, along with Shaikh Fareed, Director Planning (Urban), KDA.
No comments:
Post a Comment