1990 PLP 522 (SCMR)
GHULAM BAHU‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MAOSOOD BIBI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 522 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Ghulam Mujaddid and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM BAHU‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MAOSOOD BIBI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 522 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 522 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Ghulam Mujaddid and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 522 (SCMR) (GHULAM BAHU‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MAOSOOD BIBI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Izharul Haque, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑4‑1989, in Civil Revision No. 1704 of 1983). ‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiff's application for ad interim injunction pending decision of suit, dismissed by Trial Court on the ground that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case and that there was no question of irreparable loss‑‑‑Plaintiff's appeal was allowed but High Court in revision restored the Trial Court's order‑‑‑‑Plaintiff in his petition for leave failed to urge any point of law but his main emphasis was that Trial Court did not apply its mind and arbitrarily disallowed application for ad interim relief‑‑‑Trial Court had considered all the legal and factual aspects of the case‑‑ High Court was thus justified in restoring the order of Trial Court, especially when the affidavits were filed before the Appellate Court without affording opportunity to defendants to rebut them‑‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Application of the petitioner for ad interim injunction pending the decision of the declaratory suit filed by him was dismissed by the trial Judge on 8‑11‑1982. The reasons for the dismissal were that the petitioner‑plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case and that there was no question of irreparable loss. Against the order of the trial Judge, the petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Sargodha. The appellate Court by order dated 5‑10‑1983 allowed the appeal. The order of the Additional District Judge was impugned by Mst. Maqsood Bibi by way of Revision in the Lahore High Court. The Revision Petition was accepted and the order of the trial Judge was restored. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 10‑4‑1989. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who was unable to urge any point of law. His main emphasis was that the trial Court did not apply its mind and arbitrarily disallowed the application for the ad interim relief. This contention has no force. The trial Court considered all the legal as well as factual aspects of the case. This is evident from the following observations made by the trial Court:‑ "It is significant to note that at the time of institution of earlier suit the plaintiff's father was dead. Therefore, Mst. Shahzadan being mother of the plaintiff could best act as his guardian ad‑litem. Even otherwise a perusal of the copies of order sheet of the earlier suit brought on the record by the plaintiff shows that before appointing Mst. Shahzadan as guardian ad litem all relevant facts were taken into consideration. So prima facie there seems to be no flaw in the appointment of guardian ad litem." Hence the High Court was justified in restoring the order of the trial Court especially when the affidavits were filed before the appellate Court without affording an opportunity to the respondent to rebut them. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. AA./G‑205/S Petition dismissed.