1987 PLP 1626 (SCMR)
RAB NAWAZ and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1626 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | RAB NAWAZ and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1626 (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 1987 PLP 1626 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1626 (SCMR) (RAB NAWAZ and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 31‑3‑1987 in Writ Petition No. 4771 of 1984). ‑‑‑O. XLI, R. 23‑‑Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 32‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Order of remand‑‑Writ jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Interference in pending civil litigation‑‑District Judge remanding case to Trial Court with direction to decide all ISSUE'S‑‑Order impugned in writ jurisdiction‑‑View that ordinarily High Court should not in Constitutional jurisdiction interfere in pending civil litigation affirmed‑‑Petitioner's apprehension that Trial Court would not record finding in respect of their objection based on S.32, Arbitration Act, 1940 and might overlook decision of Supreme Court iii an earlier case, found to be entirely unfounded‑‑Principles of law enunciated by Supreme Court being binding upon all Courts in Pakistan, leave to appeal refused. Badri Narayan Agarwala v. Pak Jute Balers Limited P L D 1970 S C 43 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing their writ petition from an order of remand made by the District Judge.
2. After hearing the learned counsel we are unable to disagree with the learned Single Judge that ordinarily the High Court should not in constitutional jurisdiction interfere in pending civil litigation. The petitioners apprehend that the trial Court would not record a finding in respect of their objection based on section 32 of the Arbitration Act and that it might also, perhaps, overlook the decision of this Court in Badri Narayan Agarwala v. Pak Jute Balers Limited P L D 1970 S C
43. This apprehension is entirely unfounded. The learned Single Judge has already observed that the principles of law enunciated by this Court are binding upon all Courts in Pakistan. In the order of remand made by the learned District Judge the Trial Court has been directed to decide all issues including the one about which the petitioners are so concerned. In the circumstances no case for interference by this Court has been made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. M.I.IR‑20/S