2000 PLP 1000 (SCMR)
AKBAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1000 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | AKBAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1000 (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 2000 PLP 1000 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1000 (SCMR) (AKBAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qure$hi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents. .
- Date of hearing: 1st December, 1999.
- 4. During the course of hearing of this petition Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing .in support thereof was at his lowest in submitting that the grant of temporary injunction to the petitioners in their, suit/application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and section 151, C.P.C. on 2-12-1996 should not have been reversed by the lower Appellate Court and that the failure on the part of the High Court direct resurrection thereof, cannot be maintained.. However, he could not even so much as controvert the obvious position that non-disclosure of the attending facts and circumstances in relation to the petitioners' earlier suit, dated 24-7-1996 relating to the same subject-matter as also claiming the very relief which has been prayed for in the present suit, was duly noticed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned Judge m Chambers has not been shown to be in error in any manner whatsoever m refusing to reverse the judgment/order of the lower Appellate Court, dated 21-3-1997 in the Civil Revision before him.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16-11-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Civil Revision No..230 of 1997).
O.XXXIX, R;.1, 2 & S.151
Application for grant of temporary injunction
Non-disclosure of the attending facts and circumstances in relation to an earlier suit relating to the same subject-matter as also claiming the very relief which had been prayed for in the fresh suit
Effect
High Court was justified in refusing to reverse the judgment/order of the Lower Appellate Court wherein the relief was refused.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.
Challenge in this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been made to the judgment, dated 16-11-1999 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan whereby the above Civil Revision was dismissed observing that the order impugned therein i.e. order, dated 21-3-1997 of the lower Appellate Court reversing the grant of interim relief by the trial Court on 2-12-1996, was in order. The result was that the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court was vacated.
2. It appears that the grounds for vacating the temporary injunction in the litigation pending before the trial Court between the parties in relation to the suit-land measuring 101 Kanals, 19 Marlas situated in Chak No.214-RB, Tehsil and District Vehari had preceded by the dismissal of an earlier suit of the petitioners up to the Appellate Court, which facts were not disclosed by the plaintiffs/petitioners in their present suit. In the High Court, it was 'confirmed' by their learned counsel ".... that neither the suit was disclosed in the plaint filed before the trial Court (nor) in the application seeking interim injunction." (Underlining is for emphasis). The learned Judge in Chambers dismissed the revision petition with the direction to the trial Court to decide the suit within three months. 3: Hence this petition.
4. During the course of hearing of this petition Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing .in support thereof was at his lowest in submitting that the grant of temporary injunction to the petitioners in their, suit/application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and section 151, C.P.C. on 2-12-1996 should not have been reversed by the lower Appellate Court and that the failure on the part of the High Court direct resurrection thereof, cannot be maintained.. However, he could not even so much as controvert the obvious position that non-disclosure of the attending facts and circumstances in relation to the petitioners' earlier suit, dated 24-7-1996 relating to the same subject-matter as also claiming the very relief which has been prayed for in the present suit, was duly noticed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned Judge m Chambers has not been shown to be in error in any manner whatsoever m refusing to reverse the judgment/order of the lower Appellate Court, dated 21-3-1997 in the Civil Revision before him.
5. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./A-20/S Petition dismissed.'