| Case ID |
eb4802a3-18af-48a3-8245-f88f9ae7d8f2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revisions No. 311-D of 1982 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 16, 1982 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's civil revision challenging the dismissal of his suit for a permanent injunction against the respondents. The Court found that the respondents had not confessed to the petitioner's ownership but merely stated they would not interfere. The Court ruled that the trial court was justified in its decision, referencing the case of Kalo Khan v. Nisar Muhammad Khan. The Court emphasized that the respondents' undertaking to not interfere in the petitioner's possession was akin to a permanent injunction, and any future breach would not require the petitioner to file a new suit. The ruling reaffirmed the importance of clear admissions in civil proceedings and established that undertakings given in court hold significant weight. |
| Summary |
In this landmark case, the Lahore High Court addressed the nuances of the Specific Relief Act regarding injunctions and the implications of undertakings made by defendants in civil suits. The petitioner, Muhammad Ashiq, sought a permanent injunction against Razia Begum and others to prevent interference with his possession of certain land. Despite the respondents' initial resistance, they later stated they had no intention to interfere with the petitioner's possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to the current revision. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, clarifying that the respondents' statements did not equate to a confession of the petitioner's title but rather an undertaking that functioned similarly to a permanent injunction. This case highlights the critical role of clear and unequivocal admissions in civil litigation, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances. Key takeaways include the importance of understanding the implications of verbal undertakings in court and the necessity for defendants to clearly articulate their position regarding the plaintiff's claims. This case serves as a crucial reference for lawyers and advocates dealing with property disputes and injunctions, emphasizing the need for clarity in legal statements to avoid ambiguity and potential future litigation. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Muhammad Iqbal
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD ASHIQ alias ASHIQ ALI
|
| Respondents |
others,
RAZIA BEGUM
|
| Citations |
1982 SLD 826,
1982 PLD 459
|
| Other Citations |
Kalo Khan v. Nisar Muhammad Khan and others 1972 S C M R 602,
The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others P L D 1973 S C 49
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
|
| Sections |
54,
55
|