1992 PLP 1401 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs ZAM ZAM ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1401 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana ,J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs ZAM ZAM ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1401 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1401 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Majid Tiwana ,J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1401 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs ZAM ZAM ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Hussain Basra for Petitioner.
- Shahzad Jehangir for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th March, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.115‑‑‑Adjournment sought in appeal to prepare arguments‑‑‑Appellate Court declining adjournment and disposed of appeal after hearing respondent's arguments‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Appellate Court displayed undue haste under pressure of respondent's counsel and unnecessarily joined issues with appellant's counsel by insisting that he should address arguments then and there‑‑‑Order of Appellate Court was not sustainable and same was set aside‑‑ Matter between parties being of controversial nature involving sufficient amount, appeal filed by petitioner before Appellate Court would be deemed to be pending and would be disposed of by the District Judge himself during the specified period positively.
Judgment & Decree
Manzoor Hussain Basra for Petitioner. Shahzad Jehangir for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th March, 1992. This revision is directed against the order, dated 18‑2‑1992, by which a learned Additional District Judge at Lahore dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in limine after listening to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, who put in appearance before him of his own accord at the pre‑admission stage, and without hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was appellant before him.
2. It appears that the petitioner herein, who had instituted a suit in the Court of a Civil Judge at Lahore against the respondent for a declaration and. perpetual injunction, on the rejection of his stay application by the learned trial Judge, had brought his appeal to the Court of District Judge, Lahore and it was entrusted to Malik Rustam Ali, Additional District Judge, Lahore. While it was still at the limine stage, the learned District Judge, on the transfer application moved by the petitioner, vide his order, dated 17‑2‑1992, transferred it to the Court of Mr. Muhammad Afzal Javid, Additional District Judge, Lahore and asked the parties to appear before the transferee Court on 18‑2‑1992 and directed to dispose it of earlier. The learned counsel representing the parties appeared before the transferee Court on this date and the learned counsel for the appellant sought adjournment in order to prepare. the arguments, which was objected to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The learned appellate Judge insisted that the appellant's counsel should address arguments, but he avoided and eventually the appeal was disposed of on the same day after hearing the argument of the respondent's counsel. It seems that the learned Additional District Judge displayed undue haste, under the pressure of respondent's counsel and unnecessarily joined issues with the appellant's counsel by insisting that he should address argument then and there. He could give him a short adjournment for a day or so and could avoid unpleasantness.
3. In view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside. Since it is a controversial matter, involving sufficient amount, the appeal fled by the petitioner before the District Court shall be deemed to be still pending and it shall now be disposed of by the learned District Judge himself during the week commencing 14th of March, 1992 positively. Parties are directed to appear before him on 14‑3‑1992. AA./M‑276/L Case remanded.