2020 PLP 369 (CLC)
Syed ALI MANZAR ZAIDI and 6 others — Petitioners Versus Syed NAFEES HAIDER and 10 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 369 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed ALI MANZAR ZAIDI and 6 others — Petitioners Versus Syed NAFEES HAIDER and 10 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 369 (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 2020 PLP 369 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 369 (CLC) (Syed ALI MANZAR ZAIDI and 6 others — Petitioners Versus Syed NAFEES HAIDER and 10 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muzaffar Qadir Tameem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115 & O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.43, 54 & 55
Suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction
Order of appellate court suspending operation of the impugned order
Scope
Petitioners assailed order of Trial Court in appeal whereby their application under O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. in a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions was dismissed
Appellate Court issued notices to the respondents and suspended operation of the order of trial court by which the petitioners felt aggrieved
Nothing was finally decided amounting to a challengeable decision and only the operation of the order of trial court was suspended
Suspending the order of dismissal of an application without passing further order for granting any relief or restoring relief that was granted as an ad-interim relief by the trial court at a stage before the said application was dismissed did not tantamount to automatically revive any relief that could have been granted at ad-interim stage as the same had merged in the final order, therefore, there was no finally settled matter to be agitated before and determined by the High Court in the civil revision, which required the impugned decision to be a "case decided"
Revision petition, being premature, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, J.
Through this revision petition, the petitioners have called in question order dated 14.06.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Multan whereby through an interim order while admitting appeal for regular hearing against order of trial court dated 03.06.2019, whereby the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. filed by the petitioners in a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions was dismissed, the court issued notices to the respondents and operation of the impugned order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned trial court has been suspended. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced below:-- "As grounds raised in the instant appeal require probe and consideration, therefore, appeal in hand is admitted for regular hearing. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 and 11 be summoned through notices subject to deposit of process fee along with registered post envelope AD within three days for 29.06.2019. Operation of the impugned order is hereby suspended till decision of this appeal."
2. Bare perusal of the afore referred order shows that nothing has been finally decided that amounts to a challengeable decision and only the operation of the impugned order dated 03.06.2019 has been suspended whereby application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the respondents had been dismissed. Suspending the order of dismissal of an application without passing further orders granting any relief or restoring relief that was granted as an ad-interim relief by the trial court at a stage before the said application was dismissed does not tantamount to automatically revive any relief that may have been granted at ad-interim stage as the same had merged in the final order, therefore, there is no finally settled matter to be agitated before and determined by this Court in the civil revision, which requires the impugned decision to be a "case decided" before the revision petition could be entertained against the same. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgments reported as Mian Muhammad Luqman and 5 others v. Farida Khanam and another (1994 SCMR 1991), Nestle Milkpak Limited v. Classic Needs Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others (2006 SCMR 21) and Abdul Razzaq and others v. Muhammad Ajmal Khan (PLD 2018 Lahore 491).
3. It would be appropriate that petitioners may wait for any final order or interim order to be passed by the said court which falls within the purview of "case decided" before calling the same in question through appropriate proceedings. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application to agitate their grievance, if any, before the appellant court.
4. For what has been discussed above this revision petition is premature and is accordingly dismissed. SA/A-87/L Petition dismissed