1994 PLP 449 (SCMR)
Maj. (Retd.) EJAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KHALID MAHMOOD SINDHU‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 449 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Maj. (Retd.) EJAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KHALID MAHMOOD SINDHU‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 449 (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 1994 PLP 449 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 449 (SCMR) (Maj. (Retd.) EJAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KHALID MAHMOOD SINDHU‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 1‑3‑1993 passed in C.R. No. 90 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Ad interim injunction, grant of‑‑‑Supreme Court issuing notice to respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why petition for leave to appeal be not converted into appeal and accepted to the extent that raising of construction over plot in question, after institution of suit and notice to him, should be taken to be at his own risk and he should be prevented from alienating disputed property meanwhile‑‑‑Notice having been issued to respondent in proper time it must be taken that he would have been served with it, but he did not make appearance‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was, thus, converted into appeal and accepted to the extent that interim order would be issued pending the suit that construction made by respondent would be at his own risk and that he would not alienate property in question, meanwhile.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 1‑3‑1993 passed in C.R. No. 90 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Ad interim injunction, grant of‑‑‑Supreme Court issuing notice to respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why petition for leave to appeal be not converted into appeal and accepted to the extent that raising of construction over plot in question, after institution of suit and notice to him, should be taken to be at his own risk and he should be prevented from alienating disputed property meanwhile‑‑‑Notice having been issued to respondent in proper time it must be taken that he would have been served with it, but he did not make appearance‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was, thus, converted into appeal and accepted to the extent that interim order would be issued pending the suit that construction made by respondent would be at his own risk and that he would not alienate property in question, meanwhile. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th October, 1993. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑Notice had issued in this case to the respondent calling upon him to show cause why the petition be not converted into an appeal and accepted to the extent that raising of construction over the plot after the institution of the suit and notice to him should be taken to be on his own risk and he should be prevented from alienating the disputed property meanwhile.
2. The office record shows that notice had issued to him in proper time and it must be taken that he would have been served with it. He is not present. Therefore, we proceed to convert this petition into an appeal accept the same to the extent that an interim order issue pending the suit that the construction made by the, respondent shall be at his own risk and that he shall not alienate the disputed proper meanwhile. Merits are not being examined in any greater detail because there may be yet opportunity for the respondent to appear and show satisfactory cause for his non‑appearance and to argue further on the merits of the relief to be granted. A.A./E‑39/S Order accordingly.