1989 PLP 1775(1) (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1775(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1775(1) (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 1989 PLP 1775(1) (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: 1989 PLP 1775(1) (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Abdur Rashid, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 19‑1‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C.R. No. 1419/85). ‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 185 (3)‑‑High Court refused the grant of temporary injunction in Civil Revision arising out of refusal by the Trial Court‑‑Supreme Court declined interference with the discretionary order of Trial Court and observed that the views expressed by higher Courts should not, influence the merits, for the final decision of the suit.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from the order dated 19‑1‑1988 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Civil Revision, arising out of the refusal of the trial Court to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, was dismissed.
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not consider it a tit case for interference with the discretionary order of the trial Court. It is, however, observed that the views expressed by the higher Courts shall not influence the merits for the final decision of the suit.
3. This petition, with the foregoing observations, is dismissed. M.A.K./A‑518/S. Petition dismissed.