1994 PLP 496 (SCMR)
MAKROO alias CHAHAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus Haji SHAH MUHAMMAD and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 496 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Shakurul Salam, J |
| Parties | MAKROO alias CHAHAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus Haji SHAH MUHAMMAD and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 496 (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 1994 PLP 496 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Shakurul Salam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 496 (SCMR) (MAKROO alias CHAHAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus Haji SHAH MUHAMMAD and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1989).
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. l and 2 (in Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1989).
- Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1989).
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1989).
- Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 45‑R of 1989).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 45‑R of 1989).
- Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 45‑R of 1990).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 45‑R of 1990).
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeals from the order dated 28‑9‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Civil Revisions Nos. 445, 504 of 1988). ‑‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr. 1, 2 & 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Proceedings for contempt of Court for disobedience of temporary injunction‑‑ Rights of parties inter se were not adjudged by Court‑‑‑Interim injunction granted by High Court in favour of respondents was subjected to furnishing of adequate security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of Trial Court‑‑ Application for contempt of Court for disobedience of interim injunction was disposed of by Supreme Court with observation that it was not fit stage for disposal of such application, as that might prejudice case of either party‑‑‑Party concerned, however, would have option to make another application at the conclusion of present litigation if case for contempt of Court was made out.‑‑ [Contempt of Court]. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents (in Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1989).
Judgment & Decree
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1989). Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 45‑R of 1989). Nemo for Respondent (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 45‑R of 1989). Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 45‑R of 1990). Nemo for Respondent (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 45‑R of 1990). Date of hearing: 28th August, 1991. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM J.‑‑‑This order will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.127 and 128 of 1989 as well as Cr. M.P. No.45‑R of 1989 and Cr. M.P. No. 45‑R of 1990 as these are connected matters.
1. Relevant facts for the disposal of these matters are that the plaintiffs -respondents in the two appeals filed suits for declaration that they were owners of land in dispute. They applied for temporary injunction. The applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide two separate orders dated 7‑5‑1988. They filed appeals which were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Vehari by a consolidated order dated 4‑6‑1986. They filed revision petitions in the Lahore High Court which were allowed and interim injunction was granted. This is vide order dated 25‑9‑1988. Hence the appeals and the petitions.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondents were not entitled to interim injunction in the circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the rights of the said respondents were not previously adjudicated upon by this Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we will allow these appeals only partly, as earlier the rights of the parties inter se were not adjudged but subject the interim injunction on furnishing of adequate security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Petitions for contempt proceedings are disposed of with the observation that this is not a fit stage as this may prejudice the case of either party. However on the conclusion of the present litigation if a case is made out the party concerned may make another application.
5. The titled matters are thus disposed of. A.A./M‑1907/S Order accordingly.