1985 PLP 1918 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Petitioners Versus Haji TALIB HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1918 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Petitioners Versus Haji TALIB HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1918 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1918 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1918 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Petitioners Versus Haji TALIB HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Noor Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1985.
- Ch. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Noor Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 9-4-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Civil Revision No. 238 of 1985).
Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 1- Tempocary injunction--Grant of--Arbitration award pending in Civil Court--Respondents instituting suit before Revenue Court for recovery of rent and ejectment of petitioners--Petitioners' application for grant of temporary injunction there against rejected by Civil Court--Order upheld in appeal and revision inter alia on ground that competently instituted proceedings before Revenue Court could not be frustrated by issuance of restraining order--Supreme Court while maintaining impugned order, held, injunction could not be granted by a Court to stay proceedings another Court which is not subordinate to Court from which injunction is sought--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioners had moved the Civil Court for making an award given by an Arbitrator where under they were held entitled to the suit land subject to payment of Rs.2,50,000 as a rule of the Court. The respondents who claim to be purchasers of the suit land had raised objections to the said award and the matter is pending in a Civil Court. Meanwhile, the respondents instituted a suit against the petitioners in the Revenue Court for the recovery of rent and for their ejectment. The petitioners submitted an application before the Civil Court seized with the matter of the award for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in any manner with their possession over the disputed land. This prayer was refused and the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, who also dismissed the same vide order, dated 18‑2‑1982. The petitioners then preferred a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. A learned Judge of the said Court in a well‑considered order rejected the revision petition holding, inter alia, that competently instituted proceedings before the revenue Court cannot be frustrated by the issuance of restraining order. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The orders of the Courts below do not require any interference not only for the reasons set out by them in their orders but also for the additional reason that an injunction cannot be granted by a Court to stay proceedings of another Court which is not subordinate to the Court from which injunction is sought. As the revenue Court is not subordinate to the Civil Court in the relevant regard, hence no injunction can be granted to stay its proceedings.
4. This petition fails and is dismissed hereby. M . I . Petition dismissed.