1990 PLP 453 (SCMR)
and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus PAK SARTAJ STEEL FURNACE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 453 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus PAK SARTAJ STEEL FURNACE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 453 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 453 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 453 (SCMR) (and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus PAK SARTAJ STEEL FURNACE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Ch. M.Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 30‑9‑1987 in Crl. Original No. 176/W of 1987 in Writ Petition No. 1101 of 1985). ‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199(4‑A)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, R.4‑A‑‑‑Interim injunction‑‑‑High Court observing in its order that "as the electric supply to the petitioner's premises has been disconnected while the order of this Court directing restoration of the electricity was subsisting and it is yet to be decided whether that order had ceased to be operative or not after the expiration of six months' period it appears just and expedient that the electric supply be restored to the petitioner "‑‑‑Contention that High Court had fallen into error in not complying with the Constitutional bar regarding continuance of stay order‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider the contention raised and other connected questions‑‑‑Supreme Court, in the meanwhile, treating case for purpose of jurisdiction of the Court as a fresh case and order, vis‑a‑vis, the grant of stay, directed that the respondent shall furnish fresh adequate security with the condition that in case of his failure, the disputed amount shall be paid together with customary market profits from the date the High Court passed original order of stay.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the WAPDA, against an interim order passed by the High Court, in a Writ Petition filed by the respondent relating to the respondent's liability to pay electricity bill and its consequences. The High Court, had in an earlier order stayed the recovery of the amount subject to the furnishing of security. After expiry of necessary period, during the hearing of a miscellaneous application, the High Court noted the petitioners' plea that the stay of recovery could not be continued any further, they relied upon the bar in this behalf contained under Article 199 of the Constitution. A learned Judge in the High Court issued necessary notice and further observed and ordered as follows:‑‑ "As the electric supply to the petitioner's premises has been disconnected while the order of this Court dated 5‑5‑1985 directing restoration of the electricity was subsisting and it is yet to be decided whether that order had ceased to be operative or not after the expiration of six month's period, it appears just and expedient that the electric supply be restored to the petitioner. Respondents are, therefore, directed to restore the electricity to the petitioner forthwith. It may be observed in passing that I have taken notice of the fact that the petitioner had already furnished the security for the disputed amount in pursuance of this Court's order dated 5‑5‑1985 and the petitioner is stated to be paying the monthly bill regularly." Learned counsel has contended with respect that the learned Judge in the High Court fell into error in not complying with the Constitutional bar regarding continuance of the stay order. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to examine the pleas raised and other connected questions. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. In the meanwhile treating this for purpose of jurisdiction of this Court as a fresh case and order, vis‑a‑vis, the grant of stay, we direct that the respondent shall furnish fresh adequate security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Registrar (1) at Lahore with the condition that; in case of failure the disputed amount shall be paid together with customary market profits from the date the High Court passed the original order of stay. The needful in this behalf shall be done within a month after the receipt of notice by the respondent in this behalf, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to resort to disconnection amongst other methods for the recovery of the amount concerned. If they resort to disconnection prior information shall be laid before this Court also. Appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to parties to file all essential documents. M.A.K./W‑69/S Leave granted.