1995SCMR753 (PLP)
ZAKIYA KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ROOMI ENTERPRISES‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR753 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ZAKIYA KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ROOMI ENTERPRISES‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR753 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR753 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR753 (PLP) (ZAKIYA KHATOON‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ROOMI ENTERPRISES‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st July, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the orders of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 16‑6‑1992 passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 329 and 330 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑ Validity of orders of High Court whereby interim orders with regard to alterations in property in question, which was subject‑matter of suits was refused‑‑‑Whatever improvement had taken place and was anticipated was undertaken by respondent at his own cost and risk‑‑‑Such undertaking given, by respondent was considered a sufficient protection of the interest of petitioner‑‑‑No question for further examination having arisen in the case, leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the orders of the Lahore High Court dated 16‑6‑1992 whereby interim orders with regard to alterations in the disputed property which was the subject matter of pre‑emption suits were refused.
2. Whatever improvement was taking place and was anticipated was undertaken by the respondent to be at his own cost and risk and such an undertaking given by the respondent was considered a sufficient protection of the interest of the petitioner. We are satisfied that such an undertaking is a sufficient protection. 2‑A. No question for further examination arises in the case. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. AA./Z‑172/S Leave refused.