The page cannot be found http://www.plsbeta.com/LawOnline/law/topbar.

asp

The page cannot be found

The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is
temporarily unavailable.

Please try the following:

Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your
browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to
alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
Click the Back button to try another link.

HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.

Internet Information Services (IIS)

Technical Information (for support personnel)

Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the
words HTTP and 404.
Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for
topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks, and About
Custom Error Messages.

1 of 1 5/4/24, 2:04 PM
Case Judgement http://www.plsbeta.com/LawOnline/law/content21.asp?Casedes=20...

2006 Y L R 856

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J

AMAN ULLAH---Petitioner

Versus

HAMEED ULLAH and others---Respondents

Civil Revision No.2001 of 1999, heard on 26th January, 2004.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XXX1X, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.52 & 53---Suit for injunction---Co-
sharer---Possession of co-sharer over the portion of undivided property-Interim injunction against
co-sharer, refusal of-Every co-sharer in joint Khata was to be deemed a sharer of every inch of the
property and he had the right to defend his possession and title over the same, therefore, injunction
against a co-sharer could not be legally issued on the application of other co-sharer---Courts below
rightly refused to grant the injunction and such concurrent findings called for no interference by
High Court.

Noor Rehman v. Muhammad Yousaf 2000 CLC 1138 and Muhammad Yousaf Khan v. Board of
Revenue and 12 others 2002 CLC 739 ref.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.52 & 53---Temporary injunction,
grant of-Essentials-If any of the three ingredients i.e. prima facie case; balance of convenience; and
irreparable loss was hissing, plaintiff was not entitled to temporary injunction---Plaintiff, in the
present case, having failed to make out his case, in the absence of any illegality and material
irregularity concurrent findings of Courts below could not be disturbed by High Court.

Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Petitioner.

Mubeen-ud-Din Qazi for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th January, 2004.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---------Amanullah, plaintiff-petitioner (herein) had

instituted a suit for permanent injunction against defendants-respondents with regard to the suit
property situated in Khata No.106, Khatoni No.228, Khasra No.409/3-min??????????? in Mauza
Bhambool, Tehsil Noorpur, District Khushab, restraining them from interfering illegally and

1 of 2 5/4/24, 2:04 PM
Case Judgement http://www.plsbeta.com/LawOnline/law/content21.asp?Casedes=20...

forcibly in his possession and dispossessing him except in due process of law. Along with the suit,
the plaintiff had filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. Learned trial Court after
hearing the parties, vide order dated 24-3-1998 dismissed the application as well as plaint. Feeling
aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff-petitioner preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the
learned District Judge, Khushab who vide, impugned judgment dated 13-9-1999 dismissed the
same, affirming the findings of the trial Court.

2. I have heard both sides at length and perused the record with their kind assistance.

3. There is no cavil with the fact that property in dispute is a joint property owned by both the
parties and the plaintiff-petitioner has prayed only for the interim relief through suit for injunction
to secure his possession over the portion of the property. It is settled proposition of law that in a
joint Khata every co-sharer is a sharer of every inch of the property and he has the right to defend
his possession and title over the same as laid down in cases of Noor Rehman v. Muhammad Yousaf
(2000 CLC 1138) and Muhammad Yousaf Khan v. Board of Revenue and 12 others (2002 CLC
739).

4. For grant of temporary injunction, a litigant has to establish three requirements of law i.e. (i)
Prima facie case; (ii) Balance of convenience; and (iii) Irreparable loss. It is also settled dictum by
the superior courts that i f any of the three ingredients is missing the plaintiff is not entitled for any
temporary injunction. Both the courts below have categorically and concurrently observed that
plaintiff has not been able to make out a case for issuance of temporary injunction in his favour and
in such-like matters the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not interfere with
the concurrent findings of fact of courts below. The lower courts have validly observed that plaintiff
petitioner had not properly availed of the remedy available to him and only sought interim
injunction against other co-sharers. It is also established law that an injunction against a co-sharer
cannot be issued on the application of other co-sharer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted to point out any illegality o r material
irregularity in the impugned judgments/orders passed by the two courts below, could not respond.

6. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as
to costs.

F.M./A-
37/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Petition dismissed.

2 of 2 5/4/24, 2:04 PM