1995SCMR920 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR920 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR920 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR920 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR920 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1994.
- 2. Choudhry Muhammad Sadiq, learned Advocate Supreme Court; appearing for the petitioner, is not able to show as to how the impugned order suffers from any infirmity. However, he submitted that this Court may make observation to the effect that the petitioner may be given plot No. 107, which was offered to the petitioner by the respondent as an alternate plot and which according to him is still allegedly available.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 14‑11‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.SA. No. 1060 of 1970). ‑‑‑‑S. 56‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for injunction‑‑‑Bar of res judicata‑‑‑Dismissal of third suit for injunction in the series; first two suits on the same cause of action and for the same relief having been dismissed on the ground of limitation as also on merits‑‑‑Findings of Courts below could not be controverted on any of the grounds‑‑‑Nothing was pointed out as to how the order in question suffered from any infirmity‑‑‑No case was made out for leave to appeal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 14‑11‑1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in R.SA. No. 1060 of 1970 filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on the merits for the following reason;‑ " ....Even on merits, appellant has no case as admittedly he not being in possession of the plot in question, the suit for injunction restraining the respondents from allotting the plot in dispute is not maintainable. Moreover, admittedly this is third suit in the series and the first two suits having been dismissed, the present suit was not maintainable. The suit primarily failed because of .the dismissal of the previous suit. The finding that the suit was not maintainable and the other observations made by the two Courts below could not be controverted by learned counsel for the appellant before me. There is thus to merit in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
2. Choudhry Muhammad Sadiq, learned Advocate Supreme Court; appearing for the petitioner, is not able to show as to how the impugned order suffers from any infirmity. However, he submitted that this Court may make observation to the effect that the petitioner may be given plot No. 107, which was offered to the petitioner by the respondent as an alternate plot and which according to him is still allegedly available.
3. We are not inclined to grant leave. Leave is refused. As regards the above request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will suffice to observe that the petitioner is free to approach the respondent with his above request which will be dealt with in accordance with law. AA./M‑2128/S Leave refused.