1992 PLP C1458 (CLC)
MUHAMWAD SALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAMID BAIG and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP C1458 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana, J |
| Parties | MUHAMWAD SALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAMID BAIG and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP C1458 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP C1458 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Majid Tiwana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP C1458 (CLC) (MUHAMWAD SALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAMID BAIG and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bahadar Ali for Petitioner.
- Maqbool Alam for Respondents Nos. 4 to 7.
- Date of hearing: 19th November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115, OXXXIX, Rr.l, 2 & 4‑‑‑Grant of temporary injunction‑‑‑Vacation of‑‑‑Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff/petitioner and Appellate Court disposed of appeal filed by defendant against order of Trial Court without affording plaintiff any opportunity of being heard‑‑ Defendants having consented that they had no objection if appeal was re heard by Court of competent jurisdiction with participation of both parties, High Court accepting revision set aside order of Appellate Court and remanded appeal to be decided afresh in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
This civil revision is directed against the order, dated 14‑7‑1990/ 14‑12‑1990 (there is some confusion about the date of order) by which the learned Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, accepting the appeal of Hamid Baig and others, the defendants‑respondents, set aside the order dated 14‑11‑1989 passed by the learned trial Judge on the application of the plaintiff petitioner for temporary injunction restraining his opponents from the order dated 6‑2‑1989 passed by defendant‑respondent No.2 (Superintendent Engineer) sanctioning the enhanced water supplies for garden of respondents Nos.4 to 7 from Outlet No.21795‑L Rajbah Tharsana Canal Lower Chanab Canal West.
2. The main grouse of the learned counsel for the plaintiff‑petitioner is that the learned Additional District Judge, while disposing of the appeal of his opponents, did not afford him the opportunity of being heard. This fact is obvious from the impugned order as well which does not indicate as to whether the petitioner was served or not and under what circumstances he was not present at the time of hearing of appeal.
3. Learned counsel representing defendants‑respondents Nos.4 to 7 has no objection if the appeal is re‑heard by the learned Additional District Judge a or by sonic other Court of competent jurisdiction at the district level with the participation of both the parties.
4. This being so, the civil revision is accepted, the impugned order dated 14‑7‑1990/14‑12‑1990 is set aside and the appeal is remanded and. now entrusted to the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh for disposal in accordance with law where the parties arc directed to appear on 2‑12‑1991. H.B.T./M‑153/L Revision accepted/Order accordingly.