Summary: Sections 8, 42, 54 Specific Relief Act, 1877. Burden to prove bonafide purchaser---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 8, 42 & 54---Suit for possession, declaration and injunction---Plaintiff who claimedownership of land in question had contended that possession of the defendants over the saidland was unauthorized and illegal---Existence of entry in Revenue Record in favour of theplaintiff, was not denied by either of the parties---Suit-land existing in the name of plaintiff,which initially had proved case of the plaintiff, and burden, therefore, shifted on thedefendants to establish existence of a legal title in respect of land in question in their favour---Defendants claimed their right in respect of land in question adverse to the plaintiff, with theplea that they had purchased said land from the owners thereof and were occupying the samein their own right---Defendants, on the first instance had to establish a legal transactioneffected between them and previous owners from whom the defendants had allegedlypurchased the suit-land---To establish themselves to be bona fide purchasers of the land inquestion, the defendants had not placed on record any title deed in favour of said vendors---Defendants had pleaded that said vendors were recorded owners in Revenue Record, but thedefendants had failed to produce any entry made in favour of the vendors---Agreementswhich were produced by the defendants, were of less help to them---No other title deed wasproduced by the defendants, which could establish that they had any title in respect of suit-land, which could legally pass on to them on the basis of sale transaction as asserted by thedefendants---Mere possession of defendants over suit-land, would not prove the existence ofa legal title in favour of them---Relevant entry in Revenue Record existed in favour of theplaintiff coupled with the fact that there was no denial of title of the plaintiff on the part ofthe defendants, which established that the defendants were in full knowledge and hadrecognized the title of the plaintiff over the suit-land---Defendants could not be allowed totake a contrary stand---Defendants had failed to establish their contention---No instances ofmisappreciation and non-appreciation of evidence and material by the courts below wereestablished, which needed interference by High Court in revision petition---Petition wasdismissed.Mst. Amina Bibi v. Mudassar Aziz PLD 2003 SC 430; Zarshad through legal heirs v. ShahGul PLD 2003 SC 650; Sher Baz Khan v. Mst Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana PLD 2003 SC849; Messrs Basf Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Tanocraft Limited PLD 2003 Kar. 598;Habib Khan v. Mst. Bakhtmina 2004 SCMR 1668; Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department N.-W.F.F. Peshawar v. Mazhar Hussain PLD 2004 SC 682; Ansar Mehmood v. Allah Bakhsh2005 YLR 34; Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Leasing Ltd. v. Haq Knitwear (Pvt.) Ltd.PLD 2009 Lah. 52; Mst. Rasheeda Begum v. Mst Saeeda 1993 CLC 1236 and 2003 CLC 660distinguished.

Summary: Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and question of Resjudicata, Section 11 of C.P.C. is a legal issue, could be considered and decided at any stage--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Ss.11, 115 & O. VII, R.1 ---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12 & 54---Declaration of title and injunction---Rejection of plaint---Res judicata, principle of---Plaint filed by plaintiff's was rejected by Trial Court on the principle of res judicata---Validity---Original suit lying between the same parties on the same subject-matter hadalready been finally decided through which the contention of' plaintiffs was rejectedthat they were the only legal owners in possession of suit property---Subsequent suitwas hit by section 11, C.P.C. which was a legal objection and the same could beconsidered and decided at any stage of proceedings---Revision under section 115,C.P.C. filed by plaintiffs was not maintainable as the suit of plaintiffs was hit by section11 C.P.C.---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: Section 42 Specific Relief Act 1877 and Order 1 Rule 10 & Order XXXIX Rule 2 CPC---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10 & O.XXXIX, R.2---Suit fordeclaration and permanent injunction---Trial Court dismissed plaintiff's applicationto implead six persons to whom suit property was sold by defendants on the ground thatnature of the suit would be changed by impleading the said persons---Plaintiff contendedthat proposed defendants being owners of disputed property were necessary party,therefore, no effective decree could be passed without impleading them---Validity---Title ofsuit property was still a matter in issue between plaintiff and defendants/previous owners---Disputed property had, admittedly, been transferred in favour of six persons requested to b eimpleaded---Buyers of suit property having stepped into the shoes of previous owners hadbecome necessary party resultantly, no effective decree could be passed without impleadingthem---Trial Court had failed to appreciate provisions of relevant law---Petition wasacc epted by allowing plaintiff's application to implead said six persons by filingamended plaint.

Summary: Sections 42 & 54 Specific Relief Act, 1877, Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. No suit must fail on ground of lack of proper description of property in dispute. --- Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11---Suit for declarationand injunction---Application for rejection of plaint---Defendants filed application underO. VII, R.11, C.P. C. for dismissal of suit being not maintainable---Trial Court came tothe conclusion that suit was not maintainable on grounds mentioned in said applicationand dismissed the suit--- Appellate Court/Majlis-e-Shoora, however, set aside order of theTrial Court accepting appeal and remanded the case for further adjudication on merits---Validity---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on application filed by the defendantsunder O. VII, R.11, C.P.C., in its initial stage, without framing issues, simply on legalobjection raised by the defendants in their written statements---Appellate Court reversedthe order of the Trial Court on grounds that the Trial Court neither framed any issues norcalled for evidence and that findings of the Trial Court were not based on record nor onlaw---No contradiction was found in memo of plaint or prayer as alleged by thedefendants---No suit must fail on ground of lack of proper description of property indispute---While deciding a suit the material consideration was to give decision on merits,rather deciding same on mere technicalities---Trial Court was bound to frame issues onmerits as well as on legal objections also, whereafter decide the same keeping in view therelevant provisions of law, but Trial Court had simply decided the objections on applicationmade by the defendants in their application for rejection of suit---Some of the objections raised by the defendants were factual as well as legal and for deciding the same, evidencewas required to be called which was to be considered---Trial Court, however, gave findingson presumption, which was not proper---Even objection to the extent of nail joinder and nonjoinder of the parties could easily be met by adding or deleting the parties---Trial Court hadfailed to exercise the powers vested in it and came to the conclusion which was not inconformity with relevant provisions of law---Appellate Court though had not discussed eachand every objection, raised by the defendants, but had arrived to correct decision that theTrial Court had made error while dismissing the suit being not maintainable in such a way---No illegality or irregularity was pointed out which could make order of Appellate Courtcontrary to law---Defendants having failed to make out any case in their favour, impugnedorder of Appellate Court was upheld.

Summary: PLJ 2008 Peshawar 182 Present Muhammad Alam Khan J Haji FARID ULLAH KHAN and another - - Petitioners versus SARDAR INAYAT ULLAH KHAN and 13 others - - Respondents CR No 346 of 2007 with CM No 163 of 2007 decided on 1222008 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - O XXXIX Rr 1 2 rw S 151 - - Temporary injunction - - Issuance of - - Essentials - - Held For the issuance of temporary injunction existence of a prima facie case was not the only critarion unless until the other ingredients co - exist - - Question of private partition through the elders of locality would be thrashed out by the Court after recording evidence - - Filing of affidavits by respondents in the shape of undertaking had sufficiently protected the rights of petitioners - - In case their ownership was proved respondents would not be entitled to the costs of improvements and would hand over the peaceful possession to petitioners - - Impugned order of Appellate Court upheld injunction refused [Pp 184 185] A B C D Legal Practitioners Bar Councils Act 1973 (XXXV of 1973) - - - - - - Preamble - - Duty of counsel - - Held After being engaged in a lis it is the duty of the counsel to appear and conduct the case and assist the Court on behalf of his client in order to secure justice for him - - Violation to the Rules and cannons of conduct prescribed under the Act 1973 would amount to profession misconduct [P 185] E 1995 SCMR 753 PLD 1995 SC 462 ref Petitioner in person Malik Muhammad Bashir Advocate for Petitioners absent in spite of serviceJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: PLJ 2006 Karachi 97 Present Khilji Arif Hussain J MUHAMMAD MATLOOB and 10 others - - Plaintiffs versus JAMSHED K MARKER and 2 others - - Defendants Suit No 1048 of 2005 decided on 1052006 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - OXXXIX Rr 1 2 - - Contract Act (IX of 1872) S 10 - - Interim injunction grant of - - Valid agreement - - Prima facie - - Question of - - No binding contract between the parties thus existed - - Plaintiff therefore failed to establish prima facie case in his favour for the grant of injunction - - Question whether parties reached a concluding contract or not depended upon the fact whether the parties were of one mind and all material terms were finalized between them and they intended that the matter was closed and concluded between them - - High Court declined to grant interim injunction and application was dismissed [Pp 102 103] F G Contract - - - - - - Principles - - Converting proposal into contract - - Fundamental terms - - Intention of the parties - - In order to convert a proposal with binding contract acceptance of proposal must be absolute and unqualified - - Existence of a consensus ad idem with regard to all fundamental terms of the contract must be shown - - Whether an agreement is a completed bargain or merely provisional agreement depends on the intention of parties as deducible from language used while negotiations take a contract shape and whether the intention to have formed document drawn up postponed the formation of contract depends on the circumstances of each case [P 100] C Contract Act 1872 (IX of 1872) - - - - - - S 10 - - Valid contract - - Contract if it is made by free consent of the parties - - Essential condition - - To constitute a valid contract between parties one of the essential condition is that consensus ad idem must exist between the parties with regard to all the terms of contract and in case of any ambiguity the same can adversely reflect about existence of the contract [P 100] A B Contract Act 1872 (IX of 1872) - - - - - - S 10 - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art 199 - - Valid contract - - Receipt whether a valid contract - - Receipt can be termed as a contract if on going through the receipt four components to form an agreement can be spelt out without any ambiguity ie one identification of seller and purchaser two sale consideration amount three identification of property to be sold and parties to agreement to sell of the disputed property are at consensus ad idem [P 100] D Specific Relief Act 1877 (I of 1877) - - - - - - S 12 - - Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) OXXXIX Rr 1 2 - - Injunction grant of - - Valid agreement - - Plaintiff relied upon a receipt acknowledging payment of cheques to defendants - - Contention of - - Receipt was a valid contract as it was signed by the defendants and it was made out from the receipt that the amount was paid in consideration of sale of the suit property - - Plea of defendants was that the cheques were not got encashed and were subject to maturity of the proposal - - Validity - - Cheques would be encashed only on reaching agreement of sale - - At the time of execution of receipt parties were not intended to sell the property but would like to enter into an agreement at subsequent date was established [P 102] E 1989 MLD 1317 and PLD 1956 (WP) Kar 521 disting PLD 1986 Kar 358 PLD 1956 Kar 521 PLD 1976 Kar 458 PLD 2006 Kar 108 2002 CLD 218 AIR 1956 Allahabad 725 1996 CLC 1758 (1931) 2 Chancery Division 307 ref Mr Ghulam Ali Khokhar Advocate for Plaintiffs Mr Bilal Shaukat Advocate for DefendantsJudgement Result:Application accordingly dismis

Summary: P L J 1980 - CM 252 [biam Riaz HuttAiN Kabam BI?AHII Cbauban Amd Naum Hasan Sham JJ Baihtawar Bte Versus Am1n Ite Cpsla No 245 of 1979 decided OB 31 - 12 - 1979 (i) Civil SaltStay orderTtrma ofitay ordtr party shall not be arrested1 aad would restore khal (watercourje) Deliberate violatioo f undertaking Serious note not takes by Supreme Court in view of fresh undertaking by councel for tbe party for compliance within fortnightO Xli R 5 Civil P C (Para S) (il) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1998) - O Xxxix R 2 (3) aad S 151 - Temporary injunetioaContravention of injunction orders can be interfered with in exercise of inherent jurisdiction and not under separate suit for tbe purpose - No party caa be allowed to take advantage of bis owa wrbog inspite of orders to contrary passed by CourtParty violating iajunction order aot absolved of cognizancepenalty evea if suit or appeal is subsequently dismissed (Paras 67) (iii) Civil Proeedarc Code (V of I908) - O Xxxix R 1 2 (3) aad S 53 Temposrary iojunctionViolation ofSecuring compliance of injunction order distinguishable from penalty for violation of injunction order though it may look to be overlappingPlea of double jeopardy aot attractable (Para 9) CA Aziz Ahm?d Asc aad Ch Qkuhm Mujtaba Aor for Petitioaar Qami Din Asc aad AbSdN?az Aor for Reiooadeats No 2 aad 3

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2—Grant of injunction—Prima facie case—Irreparable loss—Balance of convenience—Electric utility company sought to disrupt supply of electricity to water board due to non-payment of dues—Water board contended that under Article II of the Implementation Agreement (I.A.) between the company and Government of Pakistan (GoP), uninterrupted supply to Strategic Customers was mandatory, and disputes over default required recourse against GoP—Held, water board made out a prima facie case for injunction as interruption would severely impact water supply across Karachi, causing public inconvenience and law and order issues—Parameters for injunctive relief were satisfied—Trial Court’s order granting injunction upheld. (b) Contract—Privity of contract—Beneficiary enforcement ----Scope—Water board was not a signatory to the Implementation Agreement between electric utility and GoP—However, held to be a Strategic Customer under the I.A.—Court observed that though not a direct party, the water board, being a clear beneficiary under the agreement, had standing to invoke its protective clauses—Privity of contract extended to beneficiaries where terms clearly conferred benefits and imposed duties on them—Foreign jurisprudence supporting beneficiary enforcement discussed and approved. (c) Electricity—Strategic Customers—Uninterrupted supply—Contractual obligations ----Interpretation of Article II of Implementation Agreement—Electric utility was contractually bound to supply uninterrupted electricity to Strategic Customers including water board—Mechanism for default and recovery explicitly provided: issuance of invoice, notice of meeting, balance notice to GoP, and dispute resolution—Held, electricity supply could not be disrupted unless remedies against GoP were exhausted—Utility company failed to pursue remedies under Article VI—Disconnection of supply was in breach of contractual obligations. (d) Civil Procedure—Interlocutory order—Final determination at interim stage—Legal propriety ----Contention that Trial Court made final conclusions at interim stage—Rejected—Findings in interlocutory order were limited to grant of interim relief and would not affect final adjudication of the suit—Observations were provisional and meant to maintain status quo pending trial—No illegality found in language used by Trial Court. (e) Injunction—Discretionary and equitable relief ----Scope—Court reaffirmed that injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief—May be granted where prima facie case exists, irreparable loss is likely, and balance of convenience favours the applicant—Held, water board demonstrated all three factors—Public interest and essential service delivery considerations reinforced grant of interim protection. Disposition: High Court Appeal dismissed—Order of learned Single Judge granting interim injunction upheld—Observations not to affect merits of the pending suit.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Concurrent findings---Petitioner challenged concurrent judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Appellate Court dismissing suit for declaration, partition, and injunction---Supreme Court reiterated that revisional powers under Section 115, C.P.C. are limited to correcting jurisdictional defects, material irregularities, or errors of law affecting merits of the case---Findings of fact by lower courts, even if erroneous, cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible---No jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity found in concurrent judgments---Revision petition dismissed accordingly. (b) Law of Evidence ----Proof of heirship---Inheritance---Requirement---Petitioner failed to substantiate claim of being legal heir of deceased owner---No credible evidence produced regarding relationship or ownership---Mere assertions without documentary or reliable evidence held insufficient to establish entitlement in inheritance matters---Unsubstantiated claims rejected. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ----Ss. 42 & 54---Declaration and injunction---Fraud---Pleading and proof---Petitioner alleged fraud in execution of sale deeds but failed to plead fraud with necessary particulars or substantiate it through evidence---Court held that general allegations without specific details regarding manner, time, collusion, and purpose do not constitute valid plea of fraud---Principles of acquiescence and waiver also attracted due to prolonged inaction by petitioner---Relief rightly denied. Cited Cases: • Bashir Ahmed through Legal Representative and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others (PLD 2019 SC 504) • Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi v. Ravi Steel Company, Lahore (PLD 2020 SC 324) • Taj Wali Khan v. Hukam Khan (decd.) through L.Rs. (2025 SCMR 231) • Muhammad Hanif Qureshi v. Muhammad Ayub and another (2024 CLC 1838) • Mariyappa K.S. v. K.T. Siddalinga Setty [1989(1) KantLJ 150 = 1989 CivCC 183] • S. Kaliyammal v. K. Palaniammal [1999 AIR (Madras) 40] • Kisan Ramji Khandare v. Kausalyabai Gangaram [2007(3) BCR 118] • Cambridge Solutions Ltd., Bangalore v. Global Software Ltd. [2009 AIR (Madras) 74] • Khudadad v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah alias S. Inaam Hussain and others (2022 SCMR 933) • Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD 2022 SC 21) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and others v. Latif Ullah Khan (2021 SCMR 829) • Abdul Khaliq (Deceased) through L.Rs. v. Ch. Rehmat Ali (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others (2012 SCMR 508) • Ahmad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and others (2010 SCMR 984) • Malik Falaksher through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Baran and another (2024 YLR 2578) • Imtiaz Ali v. Muhammad Sadiq (2023 MLD 1819) • Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb and others (2024 SCMR 916) • Abdul Aziz v. Sheikh Fateh Muhammad (2007 SCMR 336) • Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469) • Hakim-ud-Din through L.Rs. and others v. Faiz Bakhsh and others (2007 SCMR 870) • Rashid Ahmad v. Said Ahmad (2007 SCMR 926) • Muhammad Feroze and others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali (2006 SCMR 1304) • Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Aslam through Legal Heirs and 7 others (2008 CLC 1055) • The Chairman, Wapda and 4 others v. Messrs Sitara Marbles Industry through Managing Director (2016 YLR 205)

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ----Suit for specific performance—Interim injunction—Agreement to sell disputed—Requirement of prima facie case Petitioner sought interim relief in suit for specific performance based on alleged agreement to sell—Respondents denied execution of agreement and claimed petitioner was a tenant whose cheques for rent were dishonoured—Trial and appellate courts concurrently declined interim relief—Held, where authenticity of agreement is in dispute and execution/payment of consideration is not admitted, petitioner must first establish a strong prima facie case by cogent evidence—Absent such proof, no interim injunction can be granted to protect possession under disputed title. Cited Cases: • Faiz ur Rehman Alvi v. Addl. District Judge 2020 YLR 2143 • Mst. Rasheed Bibi v. Muhammad Arshad 2020 MLD 1875 • Rao Abdul Rehman v. Muhammad Afzal 2023 SCMR 815 (b) Civil Procedure—Injunction—Principles for grant ----Interim relief—Possession without established title—Balance of convenience—Irreparable loss Petitioner, in possession of property, claimed ownership via an agreement to sell—Respondents asserted tenancy relationship supported by a lease document—Petitioner admitted tenancy in related proceedings—Held, mere possession does not entitle a party to interim injunction unless legal title or enforceable right is established—Ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss must co-exist for interim relief—Absent these, possession cannot be protected by injunction. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ali v. Mahnga Khan 2004 SCMR 1111 • Muhammad Ajmal Khan v. Mst. Iqbal Mai PLJ 2018 Lahore 907 • Muhammad Ahmad Farooq v. Province of Punjab 2018 MLD 959 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 115—Tenant estoppel—Denial of landlord's title Petitioner, previously admitted to be tenant under registered lease, later claimed ownership through sale agreement—Held, under Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, tenant is estopped from denying landlord’s title or claiming superior right during tenancy—Principle “once a tenant, always a tenant” applicable—Petitioner cannot seek interim relief against landlord while simultaneously denying tenancy and asserting ownership without proof. Cited Cases: • Hakim Khushi Muhammad v. Mst. Talaat Rana 2010 CLC 819 • Naveed Akhtar v. Special Judge (Rent), Sialkot 2021 CLC 952 • Mrs. Azra Riaz v. Addl. District Judge 2021 CLC 623 (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 94 & O. XXXIX Rr. 1 & 2—Interim injunction—Effect of lis pendens Petitioner’s apprehension of alienation of property during suit—Court held that even if property is transferred, rights of petitioner would remain protected under doctrine of lis pendens—Hence, mere fear of alienation without established legal right does not justify grant of injunction—Held, refusal of temporary injunction was proper exercise of discretion. Disposition: Writ petition dismissed. Observations made are tentative and shall not affect the merits of the pending civil suit.------- ''Where to establish a claim, evidence is required to be recorded, prima facie case cannot be assumed in favour of petitioner especially when he is yet to establish his right to hold possession of suit property or be transferred its ownership, which already vests in respondents, who are owners of the property, instead of petitioner, who is stated to be a tenant of respondents and his claim is based on mere agreement to sell which has been denied by the other side. Agreement to sell does not create any title but gives only a right to petitioner to claim specific performance of contract, if he can prove the said agreement as valid by refuting the claim of respondents that it was a forged and fabricated document. Besides, balance of convenience tilts in favour of respondents, owners of the property and not the petitioner, holder of disputed agreement to sell, as by grant of interim relief the respondents are likely to suffer more than what the petitioner would suffer if interim relief is refused.''