1989 PLP 4410 (MLD)
MUSHEER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4410 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUSHEER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4410 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4410 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4410 (MLD) (MUSHEER AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Israr Hussain Bokhari for Petitioner.
- Mirza Aziz Akhtar Baig and Mian Ahmad Hassan for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Israr Hussain Bokhari for Petitioner. Mirza Aziz Akhtar Baig and Mian Ahmad Hassan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1989. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief which is pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Multan. The petitioner has claimed ownership of the disputed land and also challenged validity of Mutation No.9747 sanctioned on 13‑8‑1986. Along with the taint the petitioner had filed an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. In the stay application the trial Court passed an order on 18‑7‑1988 allowing status quo till the next date of hearing. On the next date of hearing, learned counsel for the parties appeared before the Court. The learned counsel for the defendant/respondent No.1 prayed for time for filing reply to the stay application. The case was adjourned to 13‑9‑1988, subject to payment of Rs.10 as costs. However, on the same day Bashir Ahmad, respondent filed an application for clarification/amendment of the earlier order and the Court passed the following order thereon:‑
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents Nos.1 and
3. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 who is proceeded against ex parte. The grievance of the petitioner is that originally the status quo order was passed in terms of stay application which covered the prayer regarding possession as well as the legal proceedings based on orders dated 1‑9‑1987 and 25‑6‑1988. Hence the order dated 31‑7‑1988 amounted to a piecemeal decision of the original stay application. There is force in the submission made by the learned counsel. Once the learned Civil Judge had chosen to adjourn the hearing of the stay application to 13‑9‑1988 there was no justification to pass an interim order on 31‑7‑1988 which amounted to a piecemeal decision of the stay application and partial refusal of relief claimed in the application. Thus he acted with material irregularity in passing the said order. I, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the order dated 31‑7‑1988 with a direction to the trial Court to hear arguments on the stay application and decide it on merits in accordance with the law. The parties shall be at liberty to place the relevant material before the Court in support of their respective contentions. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1534/L Petition allowed.