1997 PLP 864 (CLC)
UMAR DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AKHTAR BANO‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 864 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | UMAR DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AKHTAR BANO‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 864 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 864 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 864 (CLC) (UMAR DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AKHTAR BANO‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XXXIX,. Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement and declaration‑‑‑Temporary injunction granted by Trial Court was withdrawn by Appellate Court on appeal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Main contention raised by plaintiff was that order of Appellate Court being at variance with that of Trial Court, High Court should interfere; such contention would not oblige High Court to interfere merely for the reason that interim orders of two Courts were at variance. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Dismissal of application for temporary injunction by Appellate Court‑‑‑Legality‑‑‑Plaintiff's plea that dismissal of his application for temporary injunction was illegal, was devoid of any force‑‑‑Appellate Court had noted that despite order passed by Court, plaintiff had failed to produce original agreement, specific performance of which was being sought by plaintiff‑‑‑Appellate Court had also noted that plaintiff admittedly was occupying land in question as tenant‑‑‑Such approach of Appellate Court could not be deemed to be arbitrary or capricious so as to justify interference by High Court. Shahzada Muhammad Umar v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another PLD 1970 SC 139 rel.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Dismissal of application for temporary injunction by Appellate Court‑‑‑Legality‑‑‑Plaintiff's plea that dismissal of his application for temporary injunction was illegal, was devoid of any force‑‑‑Appellate Court had noted that despite order passed by Court, plaintiff had failed to produce original agreement, specific performance of which was being sought by plaintiff‑‑‑Appellate Court had also noted that plaintiff admittedly was occupying land in question as tenant‑‑‑Such approach of Appellate Court could not be deemed to be arbitrary or capricious so as to justify interference by High Court. Shahzada Muhammad Umar v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another PLD 1970 SC 139 rel. Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1996. This petition under section 115, C.P.C arises out of a suit for specific performance/declaration filed by the petitioner against the respondent. In the said suit the petitioner had moved an application for the grant of temporary injunction which was allowed by the Trial Court. However, on appeal filed by the petitioner the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mianwali.
2. The main contention raised by the petitioner's learned counsel was as the order of the, learned District Judge was at variance with that of the Trial Court, this Court should interfere. I am afraid, there is no such principle which obliges this Court to interfere merely for the reason that the interim orders of the two Courts are at variance.
3. It was next argued by the learned counsel that the learned District Judge has acted illegally in dismissing the application for temporary injunction. Again this argument is devoid of any force. It was noted by the learned District Judge that despite an order passed by the Court the petitioner failed to produce the original agreement specific performance of which was sought by the petitioner. It was also observed that admittedly the petitioner had been occupying the land as a tenant. This approach of the District Judge cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious so as to justify interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. (See Shahzada Muhammad Umar v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 SC 139). Dismissed in limine. A.A/U‑2/L Revision dismissed.