1989 PLP 502 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF — Petitioner Versus ZUBAIR AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 502 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF — Petitioner Versus ZUBAIR AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 502 (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 1989 PLP 502 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 502 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF — Petitioner Versus ZUBAIR AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Akhtar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.1 to 4:
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 1988.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 to 4:
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXIX, Rr.l & 2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Disposal of interlocutory matters--Courts are required to proceed with suits on merits so that delay which might occur on account of time consumed in attending to interlocutory matters is obviated--Plaintiffs were directed to produce their evidence on specified date with regard to merits of case--Trial Court was directed to finalize the suit within a specified period after plaintiffs had concluded their evidence--Status quo with regard to situation as obtaining on the date of order would be maintained until the main suit--When if unnecessary delay was caused by defendant in the progress and disposal of suit, Trial Court would be at liberty to consider question of temporary relief afresh--Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 to 4: Date of hearing: 31st October, 1988. Parties' counsel have been heard. We understand that the next date of hearing in the trial Court is fixed for 6‑11‑1988. The learned counsel states that this date is fixed for recording of the evidence in respect of the temporary injunction matter. Too much time has already been wasted in connection with the disposal of the interlocutory matter. The Courts should proceed with the suits on merits so that the delays which occur on account of the time consumed in attending to the interlocutory matters is obviated. The plaintiffs are, therefore, directed to produce their evidence on 6‑11‑1988 with regard to the merits of the case and the learned trial Court is directed to finalize the suit within a period of three months after the plaintiffs conclude their evidence. Status quo with regard to the situation as obtaining today will be maintained, until the decision of the main suit. However, if unnecessary delay is caused by the defendant in the progress and disposal of the suit, the trial Court will be at liberty to consider the question of temporary relief afresh. This petition is disposed of with these observations. A.A./M‑664/S Order accordingly.