2005 PLP 3033 (YLR)
Proprietor — Appellant Versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. PAKISTAN STATE OIL
| Citation | 2005 PLP 3033 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Proprietor — Appellant Versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. PAKISTAN STATE OIL |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 3033 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 3033 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 3033 (YLR) (Proprietor — Appellant Versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. PAKISTAN STATE OIL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hameed Rana for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 &.S. 115
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54
Ad interim relief-Suspension of status quo order
"Case decided "
Trial Court had allowed interim relief to the plaintiff
Defendant feeling aggrieved filed appeal before the appellate Court
Appellate Court suspended the status quo order
Application for interim relief and appeal were still pending
Revision petition was not maintainable against interim orders
Order had not qualified the parameters prescribed under S. 115 of C.P.C. as a case decided
Revision petition was, dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Ahsan-ullah Khan v. Muhammad Sami-ullah Khan PLD 1964 Lah.101; Nawabzad& Malik Habib-ullah v. The Pak. Cement Ind. Ltd. 1969 SCMR 965; Mian Zafar Iqbal and others v. Bashir Ahmad Khan and others PLD 1987 Lah. 650 and National Security Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Messrs Hoechst Pak. Ltd. and others 1992 SCMR 718 ref.
Judgment & Decree
The brief facts out of which present civil revision petition arises are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction and consequential relief along with an application for ad interim relief in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. The learned trial Court granted the ad interim relief in favour of the petitioner vide order, dated 23-2-2004. The respondents being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Addl; District Judge, Lahore who admitted the appeal for regular hearing and status quo order was suspended vide order, dated 8-3-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the learned Addl: District Judge erred in law to suspend the order of status quo granted by the learned trial Court without issuance of notice to the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is admitted fact that the application for ad interim relief and the appeal are still pending adjudication before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. It is settled principle of law that revision petition is not maintainable against such type of interim order as it is not qualified the parameters prescribed under section 115 of C.P.C. as a case decided. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down in "Muhammad Ahsan-ullah Khan v. Muhammad Sami ullah Khan" (PLD 1964 Lahore 101). The revision petition is maintainable against the final order or case decided, therefore, this revision petition is not maintainable, as per principle laid down in the following judgments:-- "Nawabzada Malik Habib-ullah v. The Pak. Cement Ind. Ltd." (1969 SCMR 965), "Mian Zafar Iqbal and others v. Bashir Ahmad Khan and others" (PLD 1987 Lahore 650) and "National Security Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Messrs Hoechst Pak. Ltd. and others" (1992 SCMR 718).
5. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore concerned is directed to decide the appeal and application for ad interim relief of the respondents as expeditiously as possible. The parties and their learned counsel are directed to co-operate with the concerned first appellate Court to finalize the matter expeditiously as possible. In case, any party tails to co-operate with the first appellate Court to decide the appeal in terms of direction of this Court, then the first appellate Court is directed to invoke penal provisions against the said party. With these observations, the civil revision petition is disposed of. M.I./L-102/L Revision dismissed.