1996 PLP 382 (MLD)
GHULAM NABI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O: — ‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 382 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Nasim, J |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O: — ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 382 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 382 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Nasim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 382 (MLD) (GHULAM NABI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O: — ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Qadir Bakhsh Thahim on behalf of Abdul Qadoos Khan Tareen for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XXXIX, R.2(3)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Issuance of temporary injunction by Trial Court‑‑‑Violation‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Petitioner instead of moving application before Trial Court for alleged violation of temporary injunction filing Constitutional petition to the effect that police could not interfere in possession of petitioner ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑ Constitutional petition had been filed with the ulterior motive to put pressure upon adverse party by getting order from the High Court‑‑‑Trial Court having issued temporary injunction, where same was violated by any person, relevant Trial Court, could be moved for proceeding further in accordance with law‑‑ High Court need not admit Constitutional petition pertaining to matter which was within jurisdiction of Trial Court‑‑‑Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XXXIX, R.2(3)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Issuance of temporary injunction by Trial Court‑‑‑Violation‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Petitioner instead of moving application before Trial Court for alleged violation of temporary injunction filing Constitutional petition to the effect that police could not interfere in possession of petitioner ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑ Constitutional petition had been filed with the ulterior motive to put pressure upon adverse party by getting order from the High Court‑‑‑Trial Court having issued temporary injunction, where same was violated by any person, relevant Trial Court, could be moved for proceeding further in accordance with law‑‑ High Court need not admit Constitutional petition pertaining to matter which was within jurisdiction of Trial Court‑‑‑Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances. Malik Qadir Bakhsh Thahim on behalf of Abdul Qadoos Khan Tareen for Petitioner. Claiming to be a lease holder on an area of 47 Kanals of land fully described in the writ petition under Rana Mehdi Hassan who is said to be in possession of an order, dated 21‑12‑1994 for the issuance of temporary injunction maintaining the status quo at the spot in the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale filed by Rana Mehdi Hassan against Ahmad Ali respondent No.2 and asserting that Ahmad Ali respondent No.2 was out to dispossess him with the help of the S.H.O., Police Station Sadar, Rajanpur and S.H.O., Police Station Kot Mithan Sharif/respondents Nos.l and 1‑A; Ghulam Nabi petitioner filed the application getting the respondents restrained from harassing him in spite of the issuance of the temporary injunction by the Civil Court.
2. It is narrated in the writ petition that in the presence of the temporary injunction issued by the Civil Court the police cannot interfere in the possession of the petitioner.
3. I have heard the preliminary arguments and at the very outset I would hold that this writ petition has been filed with; ulterior motive to put the pressure upon the adverse party by getting an order passed from this Court. If the Civil Court has issued the temporary injunction and any person is out to violate the same or the same is violated, the relevant Civil Court can be moved for proceeding further in accordance with law. This Court need not admit this writ petition for regular hearing.,
4. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition in limine. AA./G‑292/L Petition dismissed.