1990 PLP 551 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 19 others‑‑Petitioners Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB through Secretary (Colony)
| Citation | 1990 PLP 551 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 19 others‑‑Petitioners Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB through Secretary (Colony) |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 551 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 551 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 551 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 19 others‑‑Petitioners Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB through Secretary (Colony)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.K. Dogar, Advocate instructed by Mahmood A. Oureshi, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioners.
- M. Sharif Chohan, Advocate for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 10‑10‑1984, 20‑10‑1984 and 10‑11‑1984 in Writ Petition No. 3715 of 1984 and order dated 2b‑11‑1984 in I.C.A. No. 250/84). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal sought against interim order of High Court whereby interim relief during pendency of writ petition was refused to petitioners‑‑‑No justification was pointed out to modify the interim order of High Court, which was neither against any law, nor any principle had been departed from‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal sought against interim order of High Court whereby interim relief during pendency of writ petition was refused to petitioners‑‑‑No justification was pointed out to modify the interim order of High Court, which was neither against any law, nor any principle had been departed from‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused. A.K. Dogar, Advocate instructed by Mahmood A. Oureshi, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioners. M. Sharif Chohan, Advocate for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The High Court, during the pendency of the petitioners' writ petition, declined to grant them interim relief sought by the petitioners in connection with the recovery of certain sum from them. The writ petition, according to learned counsel, is still pending. Leave to appeal has been sought only against interim order of the High Court, whereby interim relief was refused to the petitioners.
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we find no justification to modify the interim order of the High Court. It is neither against any law, nor any principle has been departed from.
3. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. A.A./M‑960/S Leave refused.