1988 PLP 1113 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1113 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1113 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1113 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1113 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhamamd Sadiq for Petitioner.
- Khakan Babar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑
0. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Status quo, grant of‑‑Requirements Where respondent had no serious objection, if status quo ordered to be maintained in favour of petitioner, provided direction be given to Trial Court to dispose of suit expeditiously, High Court ordered status quo in favour of petitioner with directions to avoid prolongation of litigation so that implementation of development scheme of respondent could not be adversely affected.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑
0. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Status quo, grant of‑‑Requirements Where respondent had no serious objection, if status quo ordered to be maintained in favour of petitioner, provided direction be given to Trial Court to dispose of suit expeditiously, High Court ordered status quo in favour of petitioner with directions to avoid prolongation of litigation so that implementation of development scheme of respondent could not be adversely affected. Muhamamd Sadiq for Petitioner. Khakan Babar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th November, 1987. The petitioner is in possession of a small piece of land measuring 3 6tarlas, falling in Khasra No.155 situate in Revenue‑Estate of Nawan Kot, Lahore*. He claims to be in possession of the site. His case is that the plot is included in the adjusted Colony and thus, the respondent‑Authority is bound to adjust the same, but such adjustment has been wrongly denied to him. The cause giving rise to revision petition was commenced by the petitioner by filing a declaratory suit and along therewith he moved an application for grant of temporary injunction. It was allowed by the learned trial Court but on appeal filed by the Authority, the temporary injunction, way vacated by the learned Additional District Judge, who was seized of the appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. To avoid the prolongation of litigation so that the implementation of the development scheme may not be adversely affected, the learned counsel for the LDA, has no serious objection, if status quo is ordered to be maintained, provided, a direction, is given to the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. The course adopted and the request made by the learned counsel for the Authority, is quite reasonable. In this view of the matter, it is directed that status quo shall be maintained, till the decision of the suit which shall be decided finally by the learned trial Court by 31st of March, 1988. This time limit has been fixed on the understanding that the petitioner shall produce his evidence on his own responsibility. However, assistance to summon the evidence shall be accorded to him by the Court only, if, in its opinion, it is absolutely necessary. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. H.B.T./M‑613/1, Status quo ordered