1998 PLP 2349 (SCMR)
through Managing Director‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P., COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS (C&W) DEPARTMENT through Secretary (C&W), Peshawar and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2349 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | through Managing Director‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P., COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS (C&W) DEPARTMENT through Secretary (C&W), Peshawar and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2349 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2349 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2349 (SCMR) (through Managing Director‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P., COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS (C&W) DEPARTMENT through Secretary (C&W), Peshawar and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Leasing out hotel to petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner having failed to pay huge amount of lease, respondents took over possession from petitioner in terms of lease‑‑ Petitioner having filed suit against respondent for taking over possession from him, his prayer for interim order was dismissed by Courts below including the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner stated before the Supreme Court that he would be satisfied if respondents would not lease out hotel to any other person and his suit be disposed of at an early date‑‑‑Counsel for respondents made statement in Court that they would not lease out disputed property to any other person and would run the hotel themselves‑‑‑Such statement was acceptable to petitioner‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of in terms of statement of parties.
- Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Saifur Rehman Kiyani, Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1996. ,
- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-- Leasing out hotel to petitioner---Petitioner having failed to pay huge amount of lease, respondents took over possession from petitioner in terms of lease-- Petitioner having filed suit against respondent for taking over possession from him, his prayer for interim order was dismissed by Courts below including the High Court---Validity---Petitioner stated before the Supreme Court that he would be satisfied if respondents would not lease out hotel to any other person and his suit be disposed of at an early date---Counsel for respondents made statement in Court that they would not lease out disputed property to any other person and would run the hotel themselves---Such statement was acceptable to petitioner---Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of in terms of statement of parties.
- Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Saifur Rehman Kiyani, Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. for Respondents.
- 3. As the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear, Mr. Arif, the Managing Director of the petitioner hotel, stated that he would be satisfied if the respondents do not lease out the hotel to any other party and the suit is disposed of at an early date. The High Court has already given a direction for disposal of p the suit. At this stage Mr- Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. Saifur Rehman Kiyani, learned Advocate-General, N.-W.T.P. made statement that during the pendency of the suit, the respondents would not lease out the disputed property to any 'other person. However, they would run the hotel themselves. This statement was acceptable to Mr. Arif and the petition is disposed of in terms of this statement.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 19‑9‑1995 passed in F.A.O. No.3 of 1995).
Judgment & Decree
SALEM AKHTAR, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby its appeal against the order refusing to grant interim relief was dismissed.
2. The respondents had leased out Pines Hotel to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondents illegally dispossessed the petitioner and took possession of the building. The stand taken by the respondents was that the petitioner had failed to pay huge amount of lease as provided by the lease deed and therefore in terms of the lease they took over possession from the petitioner. The petitioner filed suit against the respondents for possession, permanent injunction, damages and in the alternative for recovery of Rs.38,41,480 and another sum of 'Rs.2 crores with interest. The petitioner had also filed an application for interim injunction and had sought possession of the hotel. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed against it was also dismissed with the direction that the trial Court shall decide the suit in short possible time, but not later than six months. Both the Courts have held that the petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case and no irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioner.
3. As the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear, Mr. Arif, the Managing Director of the petitioner hotel, stated that he would be satisfied if the respondents do not lease out the hotel to any other party and the suit is disposed of at an early date. The High Court has already given a direction for disposal of p the suit. At this stage Mr- Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. Saifur Rehman Kiyani, learned Advocate-General, N.-W.T.P. made statement that during the pendency of the suit, the respondents would not lease out the disputed property to any 'other person. However, they would run the hotel themselves. This statement was acceptable to Mr. Arif and the petition is disposed of in terms of this statement. A.A./S-64/5 Order accordingly.