| Case ID |
39237be9-26ec-4745-9c6a-a4f932ba4197 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suits Nos. 167 and 439 of 2012 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 12, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court addressed two suits regarding the ownership and possession of disputed land. The plaintiff in Suit No. 167 of 2012 sought a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against the defendants who were alleged to have dispossessed him. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for the injunction to be granted, focusing on the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The court dismissed the defendant's application for rejection of the plaint, affirming that the plaintiff had a valid cause of action. The court also addressed the appointment of a receiver, indicating that such appointments are to be made only in cases where property is at risk of being wasted or mismanaged. The overall decision confirmed the interim orders to maintain the status quo regarding the disputed property until the final adjudication of the suits. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around property disputes between NASEEM-ULHAQ as the plaintiff and RAES AFTAB ALI LASHARI and others as defendants, heard by the Sindh High Court. The court deliberated on the principles of ownership, possession, and the appropriate legal remedies under the Specific Relief Act and the Civil Procedure Code. A significant aspect of the case was the determination of whether the plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated a prima facie case to warrant an interim injunction to prevent further dispossession. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of maintaining the status quo in property disputes and the necessity of judicial oversight in cases where there is a risk of property being mismanaged or wasted. The decision also underscored the procedural requirements for rejecting a plaint and the court’s power to appoint receivers when necessary to protect property interests. The case illustrates the complex legal framework surrounding property rights in Pakistan, emphasizing the need for clear evidence and adherence to procedural law in adjudicating such disputes. Keywords include property dispute, injunction, Specific Relief Act, Civil Procedure Code, Sindh High Court, ownership rights, legal remedies, interim orders, and receivership. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J
|
| Lawyers |
Mushtaque A. Memon,
Yawar Farooqui,
Irfan Ahmed Memon,
Ahmed Pirzada,
Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam
|
| Petitioners |
NASEEM-ULHAQ through Attorney and another
|
| Respondents |
RAES AFTAB ALI LASHARI through Guardian adlitem and 5 others
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 679,
2015 YLR 550
|
| Other Citations |
Major General Shanta Shansher Jung Bahadur Rana v. Kemani Brother Private Ltd.,
Jan Muhammad Abbasi v. Mukhtiarkar Estate, Larkana,
Administrator, Thal Development v. Ali Muhammad,
Muhammad Manzoor through Legal Heirs and others v. Province of Punjab,
Muhammad Ali v. Province of Punjab and others,
Pir Bux v. Muhammad Moosa and others,
Mst. Bano alias Gul Bano and others v. Begum Dilshad Alam and others,
Ehsanullah Khan Afridi v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Land Utilization Department,
Motherwell Bridge Contracting and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Riaz Ali Khan and others,
Asadullah Mirbahar and another v. Mrs. Ayesha Muzahir through Attorney and 9 others,
Bahadur Khan v. Qabool Ahmed and 4 others,
Iqrar Muhammad Siddiqi v. Mst. Shahid Zareen,
Miss Qamar Ali v. Syed Nadir Ali and others,
Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Panama Trading Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act, 1877,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
42,
O.VII, R.11,
O.XXXIX, Rr.1,2,
O.XL, R.1
|