2005 PLP 1391 (CLC)
FAISAL HYDRANT — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1391 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAISAL HYDRANT — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1391 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1391 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1391 (CLC) (FAISAL HYDRANT — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ms. Soofia Saeed for Petitioner.
- Ahmed Pirzada, A.A.-G. Sindh and Manzoor Ahmed for C.D.G.K. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
When a Constitutional petition relating to same controversy is already pending before the High Court, it will be more appropriate if the petitioner sought any further relief relating to same dispute by filing interlocutory application in such proceedings instead of filing a fresh petition.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.
During the course of her arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the order, dated 16-8-2001 passed in C.P. No. D-1551 of 2001 to show that the present petitioner and other co-petitioners in that petition, challenged actions of respondents relating to closure of their hydrants, had been depositing the licence fee at the revised rate with the Nazir of this Court regularly. She submitted that despite pendency of such petition and the order referred above, the respondents are again threatening to close down their hydrants by illegal means. In our view, when a petition relating to same controversy is already pending before this Court, it will be more appropriate that the petitioner shall seek any further relief relating to same dispute by filing interlocutory application in such proceedings instead of filing present petition. With these observations this petition is disposed of along with the listed application. M.B.A./F-26/K Order accordingly. ***