1980 PLP 886 (CLC)
ASHIQ NAWAZ KHAN BABA-Applicant Versus Ch. SHAFAAT ALI AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 886 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. S. H. Qureshi and Muhammad Habibullah, JJ |
| Parties | ASHIQ NAWAZ KHAN BABA-Applicant Versus Ch. SHAFAAT ALI AND OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 886 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 886 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. S. H. Qureshi and Muhammad Habibullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 886 (CLC) (ASHIQ NAWAZ KHAN BABA-Applicant Versus Ch. SHAFAAT ALI AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdur Rahim for Respondent No. 1
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199-Writ--Stay-Appellant's contention that on refusal to proceed with writ petition no power vested in Court to grant stay extending beyond date of disposal of writ petition conceded to by respondent in terms that such order could not be - passed without notice to, and in absence of, respondents due to their being adversely affected by such order-Appeal being not contested by respondent allowed and writ petition held to have been disposed of without any order of stay attaching therewith--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. 1 &
2. State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Runghta A I R 1952 S C 12 ref. Riaz Anwar for
Judgment & Decree
State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Runghta A I R 1952 S C 12 ref. Riaz Anwar for Rana Abdur Rahim for Respondent No. 1 Date of hearing: 10th November, 1979. M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-Learned counsel for the appellant state that when the learned Single Judge had refused to proceed with the writ petition, there was no power to grant a stay extending beyond the date of disposal of the writ petition. In support he cites the Authority of the Indian Supreme Court in The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (1) in which the following view had been taken :-. "An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in suit or proceeding. If the Court was of opinion that there was no other adequate remedy open to the petitioners, it might have proceeded to investigate the case on its merits and come to a decision as to whether the petitioners succeeded in establishing that there was an infringement of any of their legal rights which entitled them to a writ o f mandamus or any other directions of a like nature pending such determination it might have made a suitable interim order for a;; maintaining the status quo ante. But when the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit issue directions in the nature of temporary injunction." Rana Abdur Rahim learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the said order could not have been passed without notice to and in the absence of the respondents because they were to be affected adversely by the order.
2. As the appeal is not being contested by the respondents, the same is allowed and the writ petition is held to have been disposed of without any order of stay attaching therewith. S. A. H, Order accordingly,