1989 PLP 1051 (SCMR)
MAKROO alias CHAHAT‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji SHAN MUHAMMAD and 9 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1051 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MAKROO alias CHAHAT‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji SHAN MUHAMMAD and 9 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1051 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1051 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1051 (SCMR) (MAKROO alias CHAHAT‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji SHAN MUHAMMAD and 9 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P.LA. No.1167 of 1988).
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate instructed by Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l and 2 (in C.P.L.A. No.1167 of 1988).
- Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P.L.A. No.1168 of 1988).
- Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record and Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate for Respondents Nos.l to 4 (in C.P.L.A. No.1168 of 1988).
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 28th September, 1988 by the High Court Lahore, in Civil Revisions Nos.445 and 504 of 1988). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Trial Court refused to grant temporary injunction to plaintiffs‑‑Appellate Court affirmed order of refusal but High Court in revisional jurisdiction reversed findings of two Courts below thus granting temporary injunction to plaintiffs‑‑Defendants' contention that High Court had fallen into error because the effect of the acceptance of revision by High Court was that effectiveness of earlier orders passed by Supreme Court in the matter had been nullified through the act of High Court‑‑Such contention and other questions raised in petition having prima facie force, required examination‑‑Leave to appeal was thus granted.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants' side in suits pending before a Civil Court, against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents/plaintiffs' Civil Revisions. The revisions had arisen out of refusal by the trial Court to grant temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiffs' side. The appellate Court had affirmed the orders of refusal. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction has reversed the lower Courts' orders, therefore, these two petitions for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended with respect, that the learned Judge in the High Court has fallen into error, because the effect of the acceptance of the revisions by the High Court is that the effectiveness of the earlier orders passed by the Supreme Court in this matter has been nullified through the act of the High Court. We after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents/caveat or on A the point, feel satisfied that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has, prima facie, force. This and other questions raised in these petitions require examination. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. No security The impugned judgment/orders shall remain suspended as earlier ordered. The appeals shall be prepared on the present record with direction for filing of all additional documents which would be necessary for the disposal of the appeals, Leave to appeal granted. A.A./M‑751/S Appeal allowed.