Legal Researchers


"We commit & we deliver"


2008 CLC 418
Suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable unless plaintiff shows some right, title and interest in suit property..

2008 CLC 1328
In a suit for partition, plaintiff was permitted to repair or construct new house upon his own risk and cost after submitting affidavit.

PLD 2012 Sindh 443
When order of any authority on the basis of malafide then there is no need to establish three ingredients as prescribed u/o 39 rule 1.

2009 YLR 2454
Only those documents could be considered in case of injunction which were part of the record at the time of filing of the application for injunction

2004 SCMR 1092
Injunction is form, of equitable relief and there is to be issued in aid of equity and justice but not in the aid of injustice. For grant of such relief it is mandatory nut only to established that petitioner has a prima-facie case, but also that balance of convenience is on his side and that he would suffer irreparable injury loss unless he is protected during the pendency of suit

2009 CLC 92
In a suit for partition, no one could be permitted to make construction over valuable part of land upon his own risk and cast when partition proceeding or pending

2004 MLD 1820
Trial court had impel power under order 39 rule 4 to discharge vary or set aside the order
Interim injunction issued in absence of other party. Such order could be challenged before appellate court under 43 rule 1 clause CPC.

2009 YLR 171
Loss of money is not irreparable loss Ad-interim injunction was not issued

2011 YLR 1089
Ad-interim injunction was issued relating to thus stand

2011 CLC 391, 2011 CLC 421
What is Ad-interim injunction and status-quo.

2011 CLC 933
Three ingredients or defined

2011 CLC 1086
What are valid requirements for issuance of mandatory injunction

2011 MLD 1518
Co-sharer may apply for temporary injunction to protect his possession to be extent of his own share but not exceeding from his entitlement

2011 YLR 2515
In every case Ad-interim injunction should not be issue liberally court should satisfied itself�. Principle defined

2011 MLD 1787
Ad-interim injunction is issued against a person nut a official designation =

2011 YLR 2767
In a suit for specific against performance interim injunction was granted on the condition of deposit of remaining amount

2011 YLR 2886
Interim injunction without valid and enforceable contact could not be issued

2011 CLC 1866
Despite fulfillment of three ingredients in appropriate cases in the larger public interest Ad-interim injunction may be refused

2011 CLC 1985
In the grab of Ad-interim injunction, total relief could not be granted

2012 YLR 809
Ad-interim injunction would not be issued relating to joint land rather suit for partition be filed

2012 CLC 415
Ad-interim injunction should be issued in case of extreme emergency.

2012 CLC 721
Ad-interim injunction� defined. Relating to News Agency

PLD 2012 Islamabad 68
In a suit for partition possession was forcibly constructions were stopped.

PLD 2012 Sindh 250
Public street could not be allotted nor construction maybe made upon it

PLD 2012 Sindh 434
For issuance status quo no new situation could be created. In the grab of interim injunction final relief could not granted.

2012 CLC 6
Court may take the notice of the all matters during the pendency the suit

2013 CLC 333
Injunction against public functionary on the ground of financial law could not be issued

2013 YLR 489
Plaintiff claim that he be not dispossessed except partition suit be decreed.

2013 CLC 744
Suit on the basis of unregistered deed interim injunction was woved due to defect that deeds or not registered

2013 MLD 1388
School in residual area was found to be commercial and was also found to be nuisance interim injunction was granted

2013 CLC 1823
Defendant illegally encroached land of plaintiff. Interim injunction without demarcation of land to determine the share of the party could not be granted.

2014 CLC 600
Ad-interim injunction could not be issued to stay day to day function of any department.
Proceedings u/sec 94 CPC may be supplemented with Ord. 39.


2014 MLD 1585,
Pre-emption Act had provided special procedure to meet the eventuality of improvement made in the status of immovable property and vendee after institution of suit. Provision for grant of temporary injunction in favour of pre-emptor or otherwise in pre-emption case were not attracted. Right of pre-emption would not affect in case of transfer of property or any change in the nature of same after institution of suit. Pre-emption being special law had prescribed a special procedure with regard to improvement and change in status and nature of property and preventive orders to maintain status would not attract in pre-emption suit.


PLD 1982 Lahore 459, 1972 SCMR 602, 2004 MLD 402, 1995 SCMR 766, 2011 SCMR 1361,
Suit was finally disposed of on the basis of either admission in written statement or undertaking. Undertaking is binding upon party concerned as injunction. In case of violation wrong doer may be penalized for violation of undertaking under order 39 CPC.

2004 CLC 990
In every civilized society and individual was required to act within limitation of law and high handedness could be allowed in the public pressure. Respondent who admitted defiance of a court order did not deserve any leniency and he was ordered to be detain in presence for a period of three months

2004 CLC 365
Ad-interim injunction was issued with the observation to the defendant to late court was to not alienate the property but he can complete the construction on his own risk and cast order was suspended by appellate court but his defendant completed construction there is no question contempt because as such no direction by passed appellate court

2004 MLD 1560
Police in violence of court�s interim order, blocked Vemo of Mala by fixing screen/Qunnat and posted police officer there

2008 CLC 1568, 2008 CLC 793, 2009 CLC 377
After expiry of six months Ad-interim injunction becomes infructious there is no question of contempt.

PLJ 2007 Lahore 1077, PLJ 2005 Peshawar 169
After expiry of one year ad-interim injunction becomes infracts there is no question of contempt.

1999 SCMR 2215,
Provision of O.XXXIX, R.2-A, C.P.C. did not require a specific order for extension of the interim injunction after expiry of 15 days in case defendant sought time for defence of application for injunction. Where defendant sought time for defence of application for injunction and various dates of hearing were given enabling him to file his reply, it was not necessary, in circumstances; to pass specific orders of extension of the interim status quo order on each date of hearing as status quo order would be deemed to have continued.

2000 MLD 1755
Defendant, having been found guilty of violating interim order granted in favour of plaintiff was directed to restore vacant possession of suit property to plaintiff. Defendant who had challenged said order had contended that under provisions of R.2-A of O.XXXIX, C.P.C. an ad interim injunction could only be granted for 15 days and it could be extended under proviso to R.2-A of
OXXXIX, C.P.C. if conditions laid down therein were fulfilled and where no extension was subsequently granted by Court, order granting ad interim order had become inoperative and ineffective on lapse of 15 days. Contention was repelled because provisions of R.2-A of OXXXIX, C.P.C. were not mandatory, but had only provided guideline to the Court not to grant ad interim injunction “ordinarily” exceeding 15 days. Court had power to extend ad interim order if defendant had not been served and failure in that behalf was not attributed to plaintiff or when defendant had sought time for defence of application for injunction. Ad interim injunction granted per se would not lapse after expiry of fifteen days. Only requirement of law was that Court should extend such injunction, but if Court would not by any specific order grant extension of ad interim order earlier passed, it would be presumed that extension had been granted..

PLD 1995 SC 572, 2000 MLD 1755
To interpret ad-interim injunction, contents of petition should be considered conjointly

2000 MLD 1755
Unless interim injunction is vacated by specific order, it remains intact

2014 CLC 65
Pendency of first suit is not disclosed in 2nd suit. Plaintiff is in possession more than his share interim injunction dismissed.

2014 CLC 188
In a suit for pre-emption, interim injunction was not order

2014 MLD 335
Interim injunction without deposit of remaining sale price was granted

1980 SCMR 89
In violation Ad-interim injunction provision under order 21 Rule 32 on the basis of section 36 cpc may be applied and previous position could be restored

PLD 2012 Lahore 260
In violation of injunction transaction was made which is not illegal or while near of the ground that it was made in violation of injunctive order rather it may be come ground for punishment of violation

2011 MLD 1449
Procedure prescribed for punishing the person who violated interim injunction

PLD 1952 Lahore 77
To regulate the proceeding contempt procedure is defined. Issue should also be framed.

2012 CLC 1114
Water supply scheme was scheduled for one village but the same was to be installed at another village. Application for interim injunction dismissed.

2013 CLC 1441
Matter was decided upto Supreme Court. Federal Ombudsman could not issue status-quo to restrain installation of patrol pump.

PLJ 2014 Lahore 504
In a contempt petition, mens-rea to challenge authority of the court should be established .be

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *