1994 PLP 450 (SCMR)
PROPERTY, GUJRAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus RASHID AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 450 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Afzal Lone, JJ |
| Parties | PROPERTY, GUJRAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus RASHID AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 450 (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 1994 PLP 450 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Afzal Lone, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 450 (SCMR) (PROPERTY, GUJRAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus RASHID AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, ‑Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in all Appeals).
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in Appeal No. 296 of 1981).
- Hafiz SA. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 5 (in CA. No. 296 of 1981).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6 (in CA. No. 296 of 1981).
- Bashir Ahmed Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in C.A. No. 297 of 1981).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 (in CA. No. 297 of 1981).
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l (in CA. No. 298 of 1981).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 (in CA. No. 298 of 1981).
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1 (in CA. No. 299 of 1981).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 (in CA. No. 299 of 1981).
- Date of hearing: 21st October, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 9‑5‑1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revisions Nos.77/79, 78/79, 79/79 and 80 of 1979). ‑‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Interim injunction issued by Trial Court‑‑‑Parties submitting that if Trial Court was directed to decide suit within three months where they could take all legal and factual pleas as available to them, appeal might be disposed of with that direction‑‑‑Appeal was disposed of by Supreme Court with direction to Trial Court to decide suit pending before it within next three months‑‑‑Parties might take before Trial Court whatever pleas they might choose.
Judgment & Decree
Hafiz SA. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 5 (in CA. No. 296 of 1981). Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6 (in CA. No. 296 of 1981). Bashir Ahmed Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in C.A. No. 297 of 1981). Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 (in CA. No. 297 of 1981). Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l (in CA. No. 298 of 1981). Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 (in CA. No. 298 of 1981). Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1 (in CA. No. 299 of 1981). Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 (in CA. No. 299 of 1981). Date of hearing: 21st October, 1990. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: ‑‑The afore titled appeals by leave are against an interim injunctions issued by the Civil Courts.
2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that if the trial Court is directed to decide the suits within three months where they can take all legal and factual pleas as available to them, the appeals may be disposed of with that direction. ,
3. In view of the above submission' of the learned counsel for the parties, these appeals are disposed of with the direction to the learned trial Court, where before‑ the parties may take whatever pleas they choose to decide the suits pending before it within the next three months. In order to avoid delay, the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 30th October, 1990. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. A.A./A‑1058/S Order accordingly.