1996 PLP 1572 (CLC)
and 22 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL‑UR‑REHMAN and 45 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1572 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza, J |
| Parties | and 22 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL‑UR‑REHMAN and 45 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1572 (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 1996 PLP 1572 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1572 (CLC) (and 22 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL‑UR‑REHMAN and 45 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O.XXXIX, R. 2(b) [added by Civil Laws (Reforms) Act (XIV of 1994)] & S. 115‑‑‑Procedural law‑‑‑Amendment‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Amendment in procedural law has to be retrospective‑‑‑‑Rule 2(b) of O.XXXIX, C.P.C. as added by Civil Laws (Reforms) Act, 1994 indicates that powers of extending injunction can .be exercised by Court either suo motu or on application of any party interested‑‑‑ Temporary injunction granted by Trial Court on 1‑2‑1993 and partially approved by Appellate Court on 11‑4‑1993, would cease to have effect on expiration of six months, without having been extended by Court‑‑‑Temporary injunction had thus, ceased to exist‑‑‑Trial Court, however, would be at liberty to hear concerned parties again and to pass any order deemed fit by it within the contemplation of O.XXXIX, R. 2(b), C.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Temporary injunction granted by Trial Court on 1‑2‑1993 and partially approved by Appellate Court on 11‑4‑1993, would cease to have effect on expiration of six months, without having been extended by Court‑‑‑Temporary injunction had thus, ceased to exist‑‑‑Trial Court, however, would be at liberty to hear concerned parties again and to pass any order deemed fit by it within the contemplation of O.XXXIX, R. 2(b), C.P.C. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1996. The plaintiffs Fazal‑ur‑Rehman etc. in their suit for declaration of title qua 9225 Kanals, 2 Marlas of land situated in Mauza Jaba, Mansehra, were granted a temporary injunction on 1‑2‑1993, to the effect that Syed Muhammad Shah Jehan etc. the defendants shall not receive compensation of this land and shall not alienate the same in any manner whatsoever and also shall furnish bond to the effect that the amount of compensation received by them shall be refunded to the plaintiffs, in case the latter succeed. The aforesaid order was partially upheld by the learned District Judge, Mansehra on 11‑4‑1993 and was confined only to the maintenance of status quo. Defendant has come up in revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised a substantial objection to the effect that m view of Rule 2(b) added to Order 39, C.P.C. through Civil Laws (Reforms) Act, 1994, the temporary injunction in the instant case having been granted on 1‑2‑1993 and partially upheld on 11‑4‑1993 ceases to have effect on the expiration of six months, without being extended by the Court after hearing the parties again and without reasons to be recorded for such extension.
3. A perusal of the aforesaid Act XIV of 1994 promulgated on 31‑7‑1994 would provide that it is an amendment in a Procedural Law which has to be retrospective. Thus, one has no escape from the consequence that the temporary injunction issued by the Trial Court ceases to exist at present. The very language of newly‑added Rule 2(b) of Order 39, C.P.C. would undoubtedly indicate that such powers of extending the injunction can be exercised by the Court either suo motu or on the application of any party interested. Rather the idea indicating suo motu exercise of power by the Trial Court is more dominant in view of the very scheme of the amendment that requires every Civil Court to be conscious of and vigilant about all the temporary injunctions issued by it.
4. Having the aforesaid view, the temporary injunction has ceased to exist but the Trial Court is at liberty to hear the parties again and to pass any order deemed fit within the contemplation of Order 39, Rule 2(b), C.P.C. ‑.
5. The petition is accepted and the Trial Court is directed to re‑hear the parties in connection with the temporary injunction already issued. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 21‑3‑1996. A.A./1906/P Order accordingly.