1992 PLP 1214 (MLD)
Mst. ZAKRIA BANO and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SCIENCE LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1214 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana, J |
| Parties | Mst. ZAKRIA BANO and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SCIENCE LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1214 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1214 (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 1214 (MLD) (Mst. ZAKRIA BANO and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SCIENCE LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Hussain Ch. for Petitioners.
- Sh. Ifzal Ahmad Qureshi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th February, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.115‑‑‑Dismissal of petitioner's stay application arising out of declaratory suit, challenging validity of notice issued by Authorities for removal of alleged encroachment‑‑‑Respondents had no objection if operation of impugned notice was suspended till decision of suit by Trial Court provided said Court was directed to decide case expeditiously‑‑‑Petitioners having accepted the offer, High Court directed that operation of impugned notice would remain suspended till decision of suit, which Trial Court was directed to decide within a period of three months.
Judgment & Decree
This revision arises out of the order, dated 31‑3‑1991, by which a learned Additional District Judge at Lahore dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs‑petitioners against the order, dated 21‑1‑1990, whereby a Civil Judge at Lahore had dismissed their 'stay application arising out of a declaratory suit, challenging the validity of the notice issued by the respondents for the removal of alleged encroachments.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants respondents has no objection if the operation of the impugned notice is suspended till the decision of the suit by the trial Judge provided he is directed to decide it expeditiously.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs‑petitioners is satisfied with the offer made by the learned opposing counsel as the purpose of his client is served. This being so; the operation of the impugned notice, dated 4‑1‑1989, shall remain suspended till the decision of the suit which the learned trial Judge is directed to decide within a period of three months. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. AA./Z‑22/L Order accordingly.