Permanent injunction | The civil court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the petitioner, but the appellate court quashed the decision for lack of description of the property. However, the High Court allowed the appeal and ruled that despite the lack of description of the property, the injunction can be maintained if the claim is strong. 2024 C L C 381

The civil court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the petitioner, but the appellate court quashed the decision for lack of description of the property. However, the High Court allowed the appeal and ruled that despite the lack of description of the property, the injunction can be maintained if the claim is strong.
2024 C L C 381

اہم نکات:

1. مستقل حکم امتناعی: درخواست دائمی حکم امتناعی کے حوالے سے دائر کی گئی تھی۔ بنیادی عدالت نے درخواست گزار کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، مگر اپیلیٹ عدالت نے اس بنیاد پر فیصلے سے اختلاف کیا کہ درخواست گزار جائیداد کی درست تفصیل پیش کرنے میں ناکام رہے۔

2. جائیداد کی تفصیل کی عدم موجودگی: درخواست گزار نے دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ جائیداد پر قابض ہیں، اور دعوے کے ثبوت کے طور پر جمع بندری کی نقل پیش کی، جس میں 7 مرلے کے رقبے پر درخواست گزار اور نچلی عدالت کے گواہوں کے قبضے کو ظاہر کیا گیا تھا۔

3. دستاویزی ثبوت: متعلقہ دستاویزات جیسے کہ جمع بندی اور گرداوری میں درخواست گزار کے قبضے کو ثابت کیا گیا تھا، جس میں درخواست گزار کا نام بطور خریدار اور قابض درج تھا۔ اسی طرح مخالف پارٹی کے گواہوں نے بھی اس بات کا اقرار کیا۔

4. اپیل کا فیصلہ: عدالت عالیہ نے اپیل کی سماعت کے بعد اپیلیٹ عدالت کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا اور سول عدالت کا فیصلہ بحال کیا۔ یوں درخواست گزار کے حق میں حکم امتناعی کو برقرار رکھا گیا۔

5. اہم قانون نکتہ: عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ جائیداد کی تفصیل نہ ہونے کے باوجود بھی جب تک دعوے میں استدلال مضبوط ہے، دائمی حکم امتناعی دیا جا سکتا ہے۔

فیصلہ: درخواست گزار کی اپیل منظور کر لی گئی اور سول عدالت کا حکم بحال کر دیا گیا۔

2024 C L C 381

[High Court (AJ&K)]

Before Mian Arif Hussain, J

JAMROZ KHAN and another----Appellants

Versus

SHUJAT KHAN and others----Respondents

Civil Appeal No.62 of 2018, decided on 7th April, 2023.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 54---Suit for permanent injunction---Non-description of the suit-property---Scope and effect---Civil Court decreed the suit as prayed for, however, the Appellate Court disagreed with the findings of the Trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the description of the suit-property---Question was that as to whether the plaintiffs/appellant had succeeded to prove their stance raised in the plaint or not; and whether due to non-description of the suit-property, no effective decree of perpetual injunction could be granted---Held, that relevant Jamabandi, exhibited by the plaintiffs / appellants, showed that in the column of cultivation, the possession of plaintiffs / appellant and of proforma defendant/ respondent was recorded as purchaser, regarding a piece of land measuring 07 Marlas falling in relevant survey number; said survey number had an independent and separate identity---Such entry was also available in relevant Girdawri register and although the names of a few other persons were also recorded in said column, however, they admittedly appeared as seller/co-sharer in the Khewat but so far as question of possession was concerned, the said document spoke volume that plaintiffs/ appellants and proforma defendant/respondent were sole possessor of said survey numbers as purchasers/vendees and said position was even admitted by one of the defendant/ respondent---Moreover, the witnesses of the parties also corroborated the said version of the plaintiffs / appellants---Defendants/respondents admittedly claimed that they had purchased the suit-property from the disputed khewat, so the question of apprehension of interference in the light of evidence could not be ruled out---Appellate Court fell in error while evaluating the evidence adduced in the present case---High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court and restored the judgment passed by the Civil Court; consequently the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant stood decreed---Appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed, in circumstances.

Rafiullah Sultani for Appellants.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Property ki taqseem ,Warasat main warson ka hisa

Bachon ki custody of minors after divorce or separation

Bachon Ka Kharcha Lena After separation | bachon ka kharcha after divorce | How much child maintenance should a father pay in Pakistan? Case laws about maintenance case.