1996 PLP 452 (SCMR)
ITTEFAQ SUGAR MILLS LTD. and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian MIRAJ‑UD‑DIN and 21 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 452 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ITTEFAQ SUGAR MILLS LTD. and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian MIRAJ‑UD‑DIN and 21 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 452 (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 1996 PLP 452 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 452 (SCMR) (ITTEFAQ SUGAR MILLS LTD. and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian MIRAJ‑UD‑DIN and 21 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate, Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on-Record (absent) for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
- Dr. A. Basit, Advocate, M.A..Quershi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents (in all Petitions).
- Dates of hearing: 12th, 13th and 14th September, 1994
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the orders of Lahore High Court. Lahore dated 18‑8‑1994 passed in C.O. Nos. 65, 68, 73, 74, 76, 78, 84 and 69 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑O. XXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Petition for leave to appeal against interim order of High Court‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Petitioners were assailing order of High Court wherein they were simply asked to furnish some information‑‑‑Order in question, had not in any manner adversely affected interest/right, of petitioners so no cause of grievance was available to them to invoke jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art. 185(3) of the Constitution‑‑‑Impugned order, however, was not only interim order but subject to notice to petitioners‑‑‑Petitioners could raise objection, if any, against requisition of information from them before High Court which would be attended to and disposed of on merits‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑‑These eight petitions for leave to appeal (No.921‑L to 927/L and 929‑L of 1994) are directed against the similar interlocutory orders dated 18‑8‑1994 passed by the learned Company Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Original Petitions Nos.65, 68, 73, 74, 76, 78, 84 and 69 of 1994 respectively, which read as under:‑‑ "(1) Notice for 25‑8‑1994. (2) In the meantime the respondents are hereby directed to furnished before this Court the full information as to the shares of the petitioners in the Company and in case they have been encumbered in any way, the nature of encumbrance and the precise location of the shares. (3) To come up on 25‑8‑1994."
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we propose to dismiss these petitions on the short ground of non‑maintainability, so, it would be unnecessary and sheer waste of time to mention the facts of the case or discuss the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. ,
3. Plain reading of the impugned orders will show that the pr sent petitioners have simply been asked to furnish some information. The orders sent not, in any manner, adversely affected the interest/right of the present petitioners, so, no cause of grievance is available to them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the impugned orders were not only interim order but were also subject to notice to the present petitioners. The petitioners can raise the objection, if any, against' the requisition of information from them, before the High Court, which of course would be attended to and disposed of on merits.
4. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused in all the eight petitions which are hereby dismissed. A.A./1‑218/S Leave refused