1983 PLP (1) (SCMR)
ABDUR RAZZAQ-Petitioner Versus ILAM DIN-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP (1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUR RAZZAQ-Petitioner Versus ILAM DIN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP (1) (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 1983 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP (1) (SCMR) (ABDUR RAZZAQ-Petitioner Versus ILAM DIN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Abid Nawaz Abid, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 26th April, 1882.
- S. Abid Nawaz Abid, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On -appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court in C. R. 1520/75, dated 22nd December, 1975). -- O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2-Injunction, temporary-Trial court refusing to grant temporary injunction in a suit for perpetual injunction and such order affirmed by all Courts up to High Court-Interference with such order declined-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).
Judgment & Decree
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑Injunction, temporary‑Trial court refusing to grant temporary injunction in a suit for perpetual injunction and such order affirmed by all Courts up to High Court‑Interference with such order declined‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3). S. Abid Nawaz Abid, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing : 26th April, 1882. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑The petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 22‑12‑1975, dismissing his Civil Revision in an interlocutory matter.
2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner filed a suit for perpetual) injunction against the respondent for restraining him from raising the height' of the walls of his shop and thus depriving him use of the shop's roof. Along-with the suit he also filed an application under Order XXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. for interim injunction which was dismissed by the learned trial Court. He then filed an appeal against it which was dismissed by the Additional ‑District Judge on 28‑10‑1975. Feeling aggrieved he filed a revision A petition against the said order before the High Court which too was dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No good ground has been made out for interference with the impugned order in an interlocutory matter. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.