1971 PLP 702 (SCMR)
ZAFARULLAH KHAN AND 7 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL REHMAN AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1971 PLP 702 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAFARULLAH KHAN AND 7 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL REHMAN AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 702 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 702 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 702 (SCMR) (ZAFARULLAH KHAN AND 7 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL REHMAN AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Mazharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 18th October 1971.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court, Lahore, dated the 10th May 1971, in L. P. A. No. 395 of 1969). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58‑Interim order to furnish security for mesne profits‑Such orders not intended to be interfered with by Supreme Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 58.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The petitioners undertook to furnish security for mesne profits during the pendency of the suit as a condition for setting aside the appointment of a Receiver by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The Letters Patent Bench accepted the prayer and allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to furnish security for mesne profits in the sum of Rs. 5,000 per annum, from the date of the institution of the, suit. It is against this order that the petitioners seek leave to appeal. The petition is wholly misconceived as it is not the intention of the framer of the Constitution that interim orders of the nature indicated above, should be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
58. On merits too we see no reason to differ with the estimation of mesne profits by the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed