1985 PLP 1012 (MLD)
KAMAL DIN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1012 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KAMAL DIN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1012 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1012 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1012 (MLD) (KAMAL DIN and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ---O. XXXIX, rr.l , 2 and S.115--Interim injunction--Revision against- Revision against interim injunction accepted and case remanded to trial Court with direction for expeditious disposal in view of statement of counsel for respondent.
- Ch. Muhammad Rafiq for Petitioner.
- Qazi Abdul Hayee for Respondent No.l.
- 3. Qazi Abdul Hayee, Advocate for respondent No. 1 has no objection to the acceptance of the revision, provided a direction is issued to the trial Court for an expeditious disposal of the main suit in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Abdul Hayee for Respondent No.l. The respondents filed a declaratory suit challenging the order, dated 13-11-1982 of the Divisional Canal Officer, Gugera Division, Faisalabad. Alongwith the suit an application for interim injunction was also moved. The learned Additional Administrative Civil Judge, Faisalabad granted the said application, vide his order, dated 3-3-1983 and directed the respondents to restore the Khal in dispute. The said order was appealed against by Kamal Din etc. petitioners which was dismissed by Mr. Pervaiz Ahmad, learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 25-6-1983.
2. Kamal Din etc. petitioners have challenged the orders of the Courts below by filing the present revision.
3. Qazi Abdul Hayee, Advocate for respondent No. 1 has no objection to the acceptance of the revision, provided a direction is issued to the trial Court for an expeditious disposal of the main suit in accordance with law.
4. The learned civil Court shall try to dispose of the case as far as possible by the end of April, 1984.
5. In view of the above statement of the learned counsel for the respondents the revision is accepted and the impugned orders are set, aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H . B . T . Revision accepted.