Mariam Jan vs Ilyas Khan O — 2024 YLR 2666 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

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

Mariam Jan VS Ilyas Khan O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 54---Suit for permanent injunction---Temporary injunction---Grant or refusal of---Ingredients---Petitioner/plaintiff sought grant of status quorestraining the respondents/ defendants from raising further construction over the suit land but same was denied, which order was maintained by the appellate court---Plea of the respondent was that they had invested a huge amount and the construction was almost completed---Validity---Record (including the report of Commission) revealed that respondents had completed three stories construction work in the suit-land while infact he obtained the proprietary rights of the same under law (i.e. azad Jammu and Kashmir Regularization of Nautors and Grant of Khalsa Land Ordinance 1974) in lieu of Rs.8,54,007/= and the petitioner aggrieved from the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order/ Sanction of the suit land in favour of respondents, had filed an appeal before the concerned Commissioner---Thus, until and unless, the fact of proprietary rights of suit -land obtained by respondent was not decided by the competent fora i.e. Commissioner and above, no contrary stance could be entertained qua granted land in favour of respondent---Prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience are three pre-requisites introduced by law qua adjudication of grant or refusal of stay order---all said three ingredient are to be judged in a manner that if these pre-requisites are simultaneously, fulfilled, stay order is granted while on other hand in absence of any one of the said qualified criterion stay order cannot be issued---Prima-facie case is ascertained on the strength of facts flowing from the pleadings which in ordinarily and cursory manner convinces a prudent mind in a way that if evidence and facts remain intact a decree can ultimately be passed, while the irreparable loss in short is a loss which cannot be calculated in terms of money and balance of convenience follows the tentative assessment of other two ingredients above---Rationally the prima-facie case requirement governs the other two ingredients---Phrase prima facie case in is true parlance denotes a triable case where some substantial questions are to be probed for that matter to be tried---Injunction cannot be granted unless all the three conditions for grant of injunction co-exist---Injunction is an equitable relief---an applicant at the eve of asking for interim injunction must come with clean hands and establish his case on the weighting operatus of said three ingredient in order to obtain equitable discretionary relief---Thus, in the present case, issuance of temporary injunction would definitely create a new situation contrary to the ground realities pertaining to possession based upon proprietary rights as three storied building had already been constructed on the suit-land by the respondent and ongoing construction was bearing completion, therefore, balance of convenience laid in favour of the respondent and ad interim injunction stopping the construction at this stage, could cause irreparable loss to him rather than the petitioner---Grant of proprietary rights by competent authority prima facie spoke for the respondent---No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned orders disallowing the status quo---Revision petition, being devoid of force, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mariam Jan vs Ilyas Khan O — 2024 YLR 2666 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR