1990 PLP 897 (CLC)
Mirza ABDULLAH ANWAR BEG‑‑‑Appellant Versus MAHMOOD HAMID BHATTI and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 897 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | Mirza ABDULLAH ANWAR BEG‑‑‑Appellant Versus MAHMOOD HAMID BHATTI and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 897 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 897 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 897 (CLC) (Mirza ABDULLAH ANWAR BEG‑‑‑Appellant Versus MAHMOOD HAMID BHATTI and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Alam Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
- Pir Anwar‑ur‑Rehman for Respondent No.5.
- Date of hearing: 12th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O.XLIII, R.1‑‑‑Appeal against interim order‑‑‑ Property in dispute was already disposed of before filing of appeal‑‑‑Property having already been disposed of by respondents there was thus no apprehension of its further alienation‑‑‑Appeal having become infructuous was disposed of‑‑‑Appellant/plaintiff could, however, implead endees of property as defendants in the suit. Appellant in Person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑O.XLIII, R.1‑‑‑Appeal against interim order‑‑‑ Property in dispute was already disposed of before filing of appeal‑‑‑Property having already been disposed of by respondents there was thus no apprehension of its further alienation‑‑‑Appeal having become infructuous was disposed of‑‑‑Appellant/plaintiff could, however, implead endees of property as defendants in the suit. Appellant in Person. Amir Alam Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 to
4. Pir Anwar‑ur‑Rehman for Respondent No.5. Date of hearing: 12th September, 1989. The only prayer made in this appeal by the appellant is that respondents 1 to 4 be restrained from alienating the property till the disposal of the suit from which this appeal has arisen. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that after the order of the learned trial Court impugned in this appeal was‑ passed, but before this appeal was filed the said respondents have already alienated the property to some other party which factual position could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Since according to their own showing respondents 1 to 4 have already alienated the laid, there is no apprehension for its further alienation at their instance. This appeal seeking restrained order against respondents 1 to 4 therefore has become infructuous, which is hereby disposed of as such.
2. It will be open to the appellant to make an application before the learned trial Court in the suit for impleading the said party to whom respondents 1 to 4 sold the land as one of the defendants and make an application for temporary injunction restraining them from alienating the land which if made shall be disposed of in accordance with law, on its own merits. There will be no order as to costs. M.R.A./A‑897/L Order accordingly.