1972 SCMR 417 (PLP)
PERVEZ WAHEED‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH COLLECTOR, DISTRICT
| Citation | 1972 SCMR 417 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PERVEZ WAHEED‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH COLLECTOR, DISTRICT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 SCMR 417 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 SCMR 417 (PLP)?
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: 1972 SCMR 417 (PLP) (PERVEZ WAHEED‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH COLLECTOR, DISTRICT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 31st October 1971
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th July 1971,4passed in Civil Revision No. 935 of 1971). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑Revision‑Revisional Court can vary. terms of injunction granted by trial Court‑Demand for security, as condition precedent, for grant of injunction and a direction of early disposal of suit‑Cannot be regarded as unreason able conditions‑High Court, held, fully justified in fixing such terms.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This, petition for special leave ‑to appeal has arisen out of an order made in Civil Revision No. 935 of 1971 by a learned Single Judge 'in the Lahore High Court, whereby he partly modified an order of the lower Court granting an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner in a civil suit instituted by him' in the Court of the Additional Administrative Civil Judge, Multan. The petitioner had sought to challenge the legality of the recovery proceedings started by the Revenue authorities in respect of a Takavi loan of Rs. 5,009 obtained by him from the Collector of the District for the purpose of sinking a well on his land. The learned Single Judge maintained the injunc tion granted by the trial Court 'but imposed two conditions regarding the early disposal of the suit and the furnishing of security by the petitioner for the payment of the disputed amount in a lump sum in the event of dismissal of his suit. It is submitted by the learned counsel that while acting fin revision the High Court bad no power to vary the terms of the injunction granted by the trial Court in the exercise of the discretion vesting in it under the law. We see no substance in this contention, as the revisional Court acting under section 115 of the C. P. G. has full powers to correct any errors committed by the Courts below and to ensure that the discretion is exercised in accordance with sound judicial principles. The demand for a security, as a condition' precedent, for the grant of injunction and direction for the early disposal of the suit cannot be regarded as unreasonable conditions. For she foregoing reasons no justification is made our for our interference. The petition, therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.