1997SCMR1199 (PLP)
Messrs SPORTS WORLD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ONYX GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997SCMR1199 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs SPORTS WORLD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ONYX GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997SCMR1199 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997SCMR1199 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997SCMR1199 (PLP) (Messrs SPORTS WORLD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ONYX GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Fazal Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aastm Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2 (in both Petitions)
- Ch. Noor Ilahi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (Muhammad Siddique).
- Date of hearing: 11th December, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29‑s‑1995 passed in C.R. No.10/1995). ‑‑‑O.XXXVIII, R. 8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Disposal of property in question by defendant after institution of suit‑‑‑Application for attachment of property before judgment‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether property in question, which had already been disposed of by defendant after institution of suit could still be subject‑matter of attachment before judgment‑‑‑Person who had acquired such property was directed not to dispose of property in question‑‑‑Supreme Court further directed that pendency of appeal (before Supreme Court) should not hamper or delay trial of suit.
Judgment & Decree
Leave to appeal is granted inter alia to consider the question whether the property which has already been disposed of by the defendant after the institution of a civil suit can still be the subject‑matter of attachment before judgment. In the meanwhile Muhammad Siddique should not alienate the property which he has obtained to exchange from the petitioner. The pendency of this appeal should not hamper or delay the trial of the suit The parties may file such documents, as they wish, in support of their respective stands before the appeal comes up for hearing. A.A./S‑1079/S Leave granted.