P L D 1989 Supreme Court 629 (PLP)
MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Director‑General‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 8 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1989 Supreme Court 629 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Director‑General‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 8 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1989 Supreme Court 629 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1989 Supreme Court 629 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1989 Supreme Court 629 (PLP) (MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Director‑General‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 8 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Aslam Chohan, A.D. (Legal) M.D.A., Khalid Farooq Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on- Record (absent) for Petitioners (in all nine Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents (in all nine Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 19‑12‑1987 in Civil Revision Nos. 492‑86, 5‑4‑1986 to 506 of 1986, 518‑86, 519‑86, 540‑86, 541‑86 and 592 of 1986). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑Supreme Court, seldom interferes with orders of High Court determining the interim relief as it keeps in view that unless a grave illegality, a clear abuse of powers or a gross injustice, was easily discoverable, Supreme Court would not interfere with the orders of the High Court which determine the questions and/or extent of interim relief in the case‑‑High Court in a joint but very detailed order dealt with the question of temporary injunction, sought by the respondents, in adequate manner and took meticulous care to safeguard the interest of petitioner as well‑‑Mere fact that Supreme Court might, after full hearing, be of a different opinion on one or the other questions amongst many dealt with by the High Court, would by itself not justify to interfere with the orders passed by the High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed‑‑Need for early disposal of the case was emphasized.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents (in all nine Petitions). Date of hearing: 26th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these nine petitions; against the acceptance by the High Court of respondents' Civil Revisions which had arisen in relation to interim relief sought by the respondents /plaintiffs in their suits which are stated to be still pending. The learned Judge in the High Court in a joint but very detailed order dealt with the question of temporary injunction, sought by the respondents side, in an adequate manner. Tire mere fact that this Court might after full hearing be of different opinion on one or the other questions amongst many dealt with by the High Court, A would by itself not justify to interfere with the ‑)rders passed by the High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction. This Court seldom interferes with such like orders determining the interim relief. It has also to be kept in view that unless a grave illegality, a clear abuse of process or a gross injustice, is easily discoverable, this Court would not interfere with the orders of the High Court which determine the question and/or extent of interim relief in a case. In the present matter there is an additional factor also; namely, that the learned Judge in the High Court took meticulous care to, safeguard the interest of the petitioner authority, by making the following observation:‑ "I have noticed that the suits are pending since 1984 and the matter is still at the stage of the decision of question of issuance of temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated at the Bar that they were not interested to prolong the matter and undertook to conclude their evidence within three months. The trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the proceedings in the suits and dispose them of within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment and report compliance of this direction to this Court." We have been informed that the cases are still pending. Although no complaint has been made against the learned trial Court yet we feel that the petitioner should bring to the notice of the learned trial Judge the need for very early disposal of the case, in accordance with directions of the High Court. A copy of the application so made shall also be sent to the learned Judge who rendered the impugned, judgment for whatever action/order, necessary in the supervisory, jurisdiction of the High Court. With the foregoing observations, these petitions are dismissed. M. B. A. /M‑991/S Petitions dismissed.