Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLJ 2010 Lahore 299

KAUSAR BIBI vs ALLAH DITTA CHAUDHRY

CitationPLJ 2010 Lahore 299
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.C.R. No, 228 of 2008
Date2009-06-03
Judge(s)Pervaiz Inayat Malik
ResultPetition disposed of

Briefly stated facts as those emerge out of this petition are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration before the Civil Court, Multan to the effect that the petitioners/plaintiff were entitled to use of passage measuring 20 feet from Iqbal Mahay Paki to the residence of the petitioner. Along with which an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for the grant of temporary injunction was also filed.

2. It is inter alia contended that initially learned Civil Judge allowed interim injunction on 05.06.2007 where against an appeal was filed by Respondents No, 2 to 5 which was allowed, wherein, while issuing notices the learned Additional District Judge suspended the operation of the injunctive order passed by learned Civil Judge vide the impugned order dated 10.06.2008 which is being assailed before this Court. That all the three ingredients for the grant of temporary injunction are available to the petitioner and inspite of the fact that he had a good prima facie arguable case, balance of convenience also lies with him and it is the petitioner/plaintiff who has to suffer irreparable loss in case the interim relief is not allowed and that the learned Additional District Judge had no lawful justification to interfere, in the circumstances of the case, in the order dated 05.06.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge, thus prays that this revision petition may be allowed and the order impugned herein passed by learned Additional District Judge dated 10.06.2008 may be set aside.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes this petition and prays that since the constitution petition has been filed against an interim order, therefore, the same is not maintainable.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. The main thrust of arguments of Mr. Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, learned counsel for the respondents is that order, which is primarily of interim nature cannot be assailed through a constitution petition. I do not find myself in agreement with this submission, as to my mind, there are no hard and fast rules. It is true that in ordinary/normal course of things, interim_ orders are not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction, however, this Court in appropriate/ exceptional cases, can interfere to set the things right, where the interference is deemed necessary to restrain injustice being done to a party.

6. Admittedly the petitioner owns a land in the vicinity and has also a residence. Likewise there is no denying to the fact that the passage in dispute was being used, prior to the purchase of the land in question by the petitioner, as thoroughfare. The essential ingredients for the grant of temporary injection, to my mind are also available in the case. It may be observed that for the purposes of deciding application for the grant of temporary injunction, the Courts have only to see as to whether prima facie arguable case exists in favour of the applicant or not and that the balance of convenience/in-convenience lies in whose favour and that which of the parties is to suffer irreparable loss in case the temporary injunction is not allowed. In the case in hand, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience/inconvenience also lies in her favour and it is the petitioner/plaintiff who has to suffer irreparable loss if the interim injunction is not granted.

7. There is no denying to the fact that the petitioner's suit is pending and if the passage in dispute is allowed to be blocked by the respondents, in that eventuality, the petitioner/ plaintiff shall be left with no access either to her residence, or to the agricultural land owned and possessed by her. In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow this petition, impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge is set aside.

8. The parties are directed to maintain status quo. The learned trial Court however is expected to expedite decision of the suit pending him so that the same is concluded within a period of four months.

9. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of.

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch