1981 PLP 1128 (SCMR)
Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL, COMMITTEE, GUJRANWALA
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1128 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL, COMMITTEE, GUJRANWALA |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1128 (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 1981 PLP 1128 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1128 (SCMR) (Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL, COMMITTEE, GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zainul Abidin, Advocate and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record and Ch. Hamiduddin, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 24th February 1981).
Headnotes / Summary
24th February 1981., (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 21st May 1975, in C. M. 2058 of 1975).
0
XXXIX-Interlocutory orders-Observations in orders disposing of interlocutory applications-Always of a tentative nature Grievance that petitioner has been prejudiced by such observa tions-Held, not justified..
Judgment & Decree
0
XXXIX-Interlocutory orders-Observations in orders disposing of interlocutory applications-Always of a tentative nature Grievance that petitioner has been prejudiced by such observa tions-Held, not justified.. Syed Zainul Abidin, Advocate and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record and Ch. Hamiduddin, Advocate for Respondent No.
1. Date of hearing : 24th February 1981). DORAB PATEL, J.-Mr. Zainul Abidin stated that this petition has been filed only because the petitioner was aggrieved by the observations of the High Court which have been specified in paragraph 1 of the petition for leave. And, learned counsel stated that these observations wore incorrect, because they were contrary to the inspection note of the District Judge, which has been filed in the Paper Book at page
55. The observations by which the petitioner is aggrieved have been made by the High Court whilst' disposing of a claim for interlocutory relief, and it is settled law that observations in orders disposing of interlocutory appli cations are always of a tentative nature. Therefore, the petitioner's grievance that he has been prejudiced by these observations is not justified. However, we clarify that the Civil Judge, who is trying the suit, will decide the case according to the evidence before him and if necessary, he will inspect the premises in dispute. In view of these observations Mr. Zainul Abidin does not press the petition. However, on our enquiries, we were shocked to find that the impugned order arises out of a suit which was filed in 1973, but has not yet been decided. We, therefore, direct the trial Court to decide the suit before the end of the long vacation. The petition is dismissed subject to the above-mentioned observations. Petition dismissed.