Citation Name: 2023 MLD 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. NOOR JEHAN vs UBAID ULLAH O

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. NOOR JEHAN VS UBAID ULLAH O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner---Interim relief/injunction was granted by Trial Court---Appellate Court dismissed such order of temporary injunction---Petitioner contended that she was owner in possession of the suit property on basis of ex parte decree of Family Court against her husband on ground of entries in column No. 16 of Nikahnama and that respondent had alienated the suit property---Respondent contended that said Nikahnama was forged/fictitious/fabricated; that husband went abroad and had never retuned back uptill now; that he had appointed the respondent as his power of attorney through registered deed; that respondent had alienated the property which was already in possession of vendees; and that order of trial Court granting temporary injunction was already dismissed by District Court---Validity---Admittedly, the person in possession in whose favour the registered deed/mutations were attested, were not before the Court as respondent---In the present case, there were 6 respondents against whom the petitioner intended to get a restraining order and the fact that vendees of respondent had already been arrayed as party before the trial Court but it was never requested before High Court till the day of argument for impleadment of such vendees in the array of the respondents---Present petition was not properly filed---Ownership was claimed to be acquired on basis of ex parte judgment/decree against husband who also was not arrayed as party---Power of attorney on basis of which alienation was made was not particularly challenged by the petitioner---Claims of the petitioner as to be legally wedded wife of husband and other facts claimed in the suit were yet subjudice before the trial Court and needed to be proved through evidence---Facts were strenuously opposed by the opposite side and petitioner's case was standing in need of evidence/proof---Valuable rights had been accrued in favour of vendees of registered deed, therefore, balance of convenience did not tilt in favour of the petitioner--- No irreparable loss except multiplicity of proceedings could be pointed out--- Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mst. NOOR JEHAN vs UBAID ULLAH O — 2023 MLD 168 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD