Citation Name: 2023 PLD 78 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL REHMAN vs PROGRESSIVE MINERALS through Najeeba Ss — 2023 PLD 78 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation: 2023 PLD 78 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court: Balochistan High Court
Year: 2023
Reporter: PLD
Parties: Citation Name: 2023 PLD 78 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL REHMAN vs PROGRESSIVE MINERALS through Najeeba Ss
Subject matter: Civil
Provisions referred to: S. 54---S; S. 151

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2023 PLD 78 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case ABDUL REHMAN VS PROGRESSIVE MINERALS through Najeeba Ss. 47, 115 & O.XXI, R.32---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.54---Suit for perpetual injunction---Execution of decree---Restoration of possession and removal of encroachment---Executing Court, powers of---Respondents/decree holders were aggrieved of their dispossession and encroachment made by petitioners/judgment debtors over suit property---Held, that where holder of decree for injunction was dispossessed by judgment debtor or his possession was interfered with by encroachment or otherwise, the holder of such decree could apply to Executing Court for restoration of his possession or removal of encroachment from suit land---Such decree holder could not be asked to go and institute a fresh suit for restoration of possession etc.---Trial Court, Lower appellate Court and High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction held that respondents/decree holders were in possession of suit land---Petitioners/judgment debtors dumped construction material upon suit land of respondents/decree holders and Executing Court had rightly directed for removal of the same---Decree of injunction was not just a piece of paper, rather had same legal force and effect as any other decree---Decree holder of an injunctive decree, if dispossessed by judgment debtor could have applied to the Court on the strength of same decree for restoration of his position under S. 151, C.P.C., which provision could also be pressed into service for restoration of possession of a decree holder of perpetual injunction---High Court declined to interfere in concurrent orders passed by two Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD

2023 PLD 431 SUPREME-COURTPAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY (PEMRA) VS ARY COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (ARY DIGITAL) R. 4---Councils of Complaints---C…
2023 PLD 431 SUPREME-COURTPAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY (PEMRA) VS ARY COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (ARY DIGITAL) arts. 19 & 19a---Tolerance---Cons…
2023 PLD 174 SUPREME-COURTS.D.O./A.M., Hasht Nagri Sub-Division, PESCO, Peshawar VS KHAWAZAN ZAD S. 99 & O.I, R. 10---Misjoinder of parties---Curable defect---Misjoin…
2023 PLD 588 SUPREME-COURTNADIA NAZ VS The PRESIDENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD art. 188---Review of judgments by the Supreme Court---Grounds---Error…
2023 PLD 536 SUPREME-COURTGUFRAN ALI VS HASEEB KHAN S. 8(1)---Juvenile---Determination of age---Ossification test---Scope and significance of ossification test in det…
2023 PLD 516 SUPREME-COURTA. RAHIM FOODS (PVT.) LIMITED VS K&N'S FOODS (PVT.) LIMITED S. 10(2)(d)---Deceptive marketing practices, action for---Pre-requisites---Regis…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English