1994 PLP 506 (SCMR)
Haji MUHAMMAD UMAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ASAD ALI SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 506 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shajur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD UMAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ASAD ALI SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 506 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 506 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shajur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 506 (SCMR) (Haji MUHAMMAD UMAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ASAD ALI SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ras Tariq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Ali Sibten Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent No. 10.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an interim order of the High Court in a pending Constitution petition. The area of dissatisfaction with that order is a limited one. Originally the property in dispute between the parties was about 332 Kanals of land. On an application of the petitioner which has not received Court's approval, the disputed area stands reduced by hundred Kanals.
2. The interim order prohibits the alienation pending litigation of the disputed property which under the impugned order is reduced by one hundred Kanals.
3. In the first place the prohibition on alienation is equally well covered by doctrine of lis pendens. Hence the controversy is of little significance. Secondly the apprehension of the learned counsel that by such reduction of the area in dispute, the petitioner has been committed to the contents of his application which is yet to receive proper consideration is premature. While passing interim orders, the evaluation of the case is only tentative, one of first impression, the findings having no finality. No case is made out. Leave to appeal is refused. AA./M‑1902/S. Leave refused.