P L D 1997 Karachi 152 (PLP)
Begum BUSHRA HYDER‑‑‑Appellant Versus Raja GHULAM HYDER and another‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1997 Karachi 152 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Wajihuddin Ahmed and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Begum BUSHRA HYDER‑‑‑Appellant Versus Raja GHULAM HYDER and another‑‑‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1997 Karachi 152 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1997 Karachi 152 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Wajihuddin Ahmed and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1997 Karachi 152 (PLP) (Begum BUSHRA HYDER‑‑‑Appellant Versus Raja GHULAM HYDER and another‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Choudhry Muhammad Jameel for Appellant.
- J.H. Rahimtoola for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 7th August, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 19(18)‑ ____0, XL R.1 & O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑_‑Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1 0'72), 5.3‑‑‑Appointment of receiver ‑‑‑Plaintiff's application for appointment of Receiver and defendant's application seeking restraint against plaintiff from using part of pause in his occupation ‑‑‑Single Judge in context of appointment of Receiver implicitly denied relief to defendant ‑‑‑Single Judge in effect, through 'impugned order, had proceeded to decree the whale suit which itself was far appointment of Receiver in final analysis to implement agreement in question‑‑Receiver having been appointed at interim level pursuant to impugned order there was nothing left far trial‑‑..Specific portion of appointment of receiver objected to by defendant was, thus, recalled. gyp. 155) (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ‑‑‑‑O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Defendant's 'application seeking order of restraint against plaintiff from using part of house in his possession‑‑‑Any order relating restraint against plaintiff from using part of house in his possession would amount to dispossessing plaintiff or somebody who admittedly was in possession‑‑‑ Such kind of relief could not be granted in such manner, more when controversy was alive and was being dealt with at judicial level‑‑ Defendant's application seeking restraint on possessory rights of plaintiff was, thus, not warranted as it would amount to curtailing his possessory rights.
Judgment & Decree
WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.
On 18-9-1995, the following ad interim order in this High Court Appeal was passed:- "Mr. J.H. Rahimtoola says that copies of all annexures to the memo. of appeal have not been provided. Let the needful be done within three days. Adjourned, by consent, to 27-9-1995 but till then the Receiver appointed by the learned Single Judge shall not take steps to dispose of the property though, at the same time, he may take action to complete the title in relation to the same." Upon further hearing of the parties, on 27-9-1995, yet another order to the under-noted effect was passed:- "
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that by appointing Receiver in the case the learned Single Judge has virtually decreed the suit inasmuch as in place of the machinery envisaged in the Agreement it would now be the Receiver who shall implement the Agreement in suit. In so far as the respondent No.l plaintiff is concerned, Mr. J.H. Rahimtoola has stated before us that the plaint in the suit should be read as one whereby the plaintiff-respondent has shown his absolute willingness to honour his part of the contract under the Agreement in suit. ` On our part we have noted that there is no express revocation of the Agreement from the side of the plaintiff-respondent No.l and all that