1982 PLP 926 (SCMR)
MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus MOHAMMAD YAQOOB AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 926 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus MOHAMMAD YAQOOB AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 926 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 926 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 926 (SCMR) (MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus MOHAMMAD YAQOOB AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Riasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 12th January, 1981.
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Riasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate on‑Record for Respondents.
- Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan for the petitioner and Ch. Riasat Ali, counsel for respondent No. 1, have been heard. The order of recalling the interim stay in the circumstances of the case was eminently proper and appropriate and there is absolutely no force in this petition for leave to appeal against the said order.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 11-1-1980 of the Lahore High Court in C. M. No. 3/80 in W. P, 3988/80). -- Art. 199-Writ-Stay order-Dispute over immovable property High Court, while admitting writ petition to regular hearing, granting order of stay-Respondent making application for vacation of stay order on ground that possession had already been obtained by him when interim order of status quo was passed by High Court-Petitioner not, denying such delivery of possession-Order of High Court recalling interim order of stay-Held: eminently proper and appropriate.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑The High Court had granted the order of stay while admitting the writ petition to regular hearing. Respondent No. 1 therein submitted an application for vacation of stay order on the ground that the possession had already obtained by him when the interim order of status quo was passed by the High Court and that the petitioner had criminally trespassed on the land and a case under section 447, P. P. C. had been registered against him. The writ petitioner could not deny the fact that the possession had already been delivered to respondent No. 1 but his contention before the High Court was that he was not present when the possession was delivered to the said respondent. In these circumstances, the learned Judge recalled the interim order of stay vide his judgment dated 1‑11‑1980. This petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan for the petitioner and Ch. Riasat Ali, counsel for respondent No. 1, have been heard. The order of recalling the interim stay in the circumstances of the case was eminently proper and appropriate and there is absolutely no force in this petition for leave to appeal against the said order. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.