PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Sher Jan vs Additional District Judge, Quetta S — 2026 MLD 245 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2026 MLD 245 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2026
Reporter
MLD
Parties
Sher Jan vs Additional District Judge, Quetta S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 9---C; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

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

Sher Jan VS Additional District Judge, Quetta S. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Temporary injunction, grant/refusal of---Ingredients---Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss---Scope---Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession and raising construction over the disputed plot---Trial court dismissed the application, and the appellate court affirmed the order---Validity---Grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary relief which is regulated by three cardinal principles: establishment of a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in favor of the applicant, and likelihood of suffering irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money if the injunction is refused---Record revealed that both parties claimed title through rival registered documents and contradictory revenue entries, making the question of title a matter of serious trial and recording of evidence---When the title of the parties is seriously disputed and shrouded in mystery, no strong prima facie case can be said to be made out in favor of one party to the exclusion of the other---In such a scenario, the balance of convenience does not tilt exclusively in favor of the petitioner, and maintaining the status quo regarding the alienation of the property or preventing further encumbrance is the proper course of action to avoid multiplicity of litigation and creation of third-party interests---Appellate court failed to exercise its discretion properly by refusing interim protection in totality, thereby exposing the property to potential waste and changes---High Court modified the concurrent orders and directed both parties to maintain status quo regarding the physical features and ownership of the property till the final disposal of the suit---Revision petition was disposed of accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD

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