1987 PLP 1345 (SCMR)
YASIN Petitioner Versus IBRAHIM and others Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1345 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | YASIN Petitioner Versus IBRAHIM and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1345 (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 1987 PLP 1345 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1345 (SCMR) (YASIN Petitioner Versus IBRAHIM and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Azim‑ud‑Din, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 24‑3‑1987 in Civil Revision No.759 of 1986). ‑‑‑S. 115 & O.XLIII, R.3 (1)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Notice before presentation of appeal during pendency of suit‑ Misreading of evidence‑‑Petitioner's prayer for interim relief rejected by trial Court‑‑District Judge accepting appeal and directing maintenance of status quo‑‑Respondent's revision petition there against accepted by High Court on ground that before preferring appeal petitioner had not served notice upon respondents as required by O.XLIII, R.3(1), C.P.C.‑‑Order impugned‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine petitioner's plea which was substantiated by documentary evidence, that notice was duly served and High Court was misinformed in that regard‑‑Status quo ordered and appeal directed to be listed for hearing within 3 months.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 24‑3‑1987 of the Lahore High Court whereby in revisional jurisdiction a learned Single Judge vacated the temporary injunction granted by the District Judge, Vehari to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed a civil suit to challenge the legality of the order of the Divisional Canal Officer whereby he had allowed respondents Nos. l to 3 to draw water from canal outlet which was being used by the petitioner. Alongwith the suit he also applied for a temporary injunction for suspension of the order of the Divisional Canal Officer. The prayer for interim relief was rejected by the trial Court whereupon, he preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge accepted the appeal and directed the maintenance of status quo with regard to use of the outlet. Respondents Nos. l to 3 challenged the order of the District Judge in revision before the High Court. A learned Single Judge in the High Court accepted the revision petition and set aside the order of the District Judge solely on the ground that before preferring the appeal the petitioner had not served a notice upon respondents Nos. l to 3 as required by rule 3(1) of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that before lodging the appeal the petitioner had in fact served a notice upon respondents Nos. l to 3 under rule 3(1), ibid, and that the learned Single Judge was misinformed in this regard. In support of this contention the learned counsel has placed on record a photostat copy of the postal acknowledgment receipt. He also refers to his memorandum of appeal before the District Judge wherein it was specifically mentioned that a notice had been served upon the respondents.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security in the sum of Rs.2,
500. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. Status quo to be maintained during the pendency of the appeal which may be listed for hearing within three months. M.I./Y‑3/S Leave granted.