1985 PLP 660 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Gujranwala and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 660 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Gujranwala and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 660 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 660 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 660 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Gujranwala and others — Petitioners Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1981. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ This petition is directed against the order of the High Court, dated 10th of November, 1980 whereby the petition against the interlocutory order was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the present petition briefly are that the respondents' land in two villages in Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujrat is sought to be acquired by the Government for a Housing Scheme. The owners/ respondents of the land filed a joint suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge for a declaration that their land had not been acquired for a public purpose and for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from acquiring the same. They also filed an application for interim stay under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. The trial Court, granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs on 18‑5‑1977. The defendants (the present petitioners) filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on 15‑11‑1977. Aggrieved by this the petitioners filed a civil revision in the High Court but that also met the same fate. Hence this civil petition for special leaves to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the relevant orders. We do not consider it a fit case for interference in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction by the learned trial Court, which we feel has been rightly exercised. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit. M.I. Petition dismissed.