1990 PLP 911 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID KHAN and 10 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RAJO BIBI and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 911 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid lqhal, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID KHAN and 10 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RAJO BIBI and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 911 (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 1990 PLP 911 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid lqhal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 911 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID KHAN and 10 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. RAJO BIBI and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Farook Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 15‑10‑1988 of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, in F.A.0. Nos. 55 and 56 of 1988). ‑‑‑O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Grant of temporary injunction‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused with observation that any observations made while passing discretionary orders on question of temporary injunction by any of Courts would not influence course of trial.
Judgment & Decree
Khalid Farook Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th August, 1989. MURAMNIAD AFZAL ZILLAH J.‑‑‑These two petitions are directed against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioners' First Appeals against the grant of temporary injunction in the trial Court, on the filing of suits for declaration by the respondents side. After pointing out that the learned Judge in the High Court treated the First Appeals as if they were Civil Revisions, learned counsel ultimately contended that the real grievance of the petitioners is that such observations have been made in the impugned orders which might prejudice the petitioners' interest in the main case. After hearing him on this aspect it is directed that the discretionary orders passed on the question of temporary injunction by any of the Courts shall not influence the course of the trial. With these observations, leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./A‑629/S Leave refused.