1989 PLP 3758 (MLD)
SHAKIL AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SHUKAR DIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3758 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | SHAKIL AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SHUKAR DIN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3758 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3758 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3758 (MLD) (SHAKIL AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SHUKAR DIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan for Petitioners.
- Syed Kazam Raza Shamsi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O.XLIII,R.1 (r)‑‑West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (11 of 1962), S.18‑ Appeal against order of Trial Court‑‑Competency of‑‑Appeal before Appellate Court below, against interim order passed by Trial Court in a suit involving jurisdictional value of more than two lac of rupees was not competent as Appellate Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Kazam Raza Shamsi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11‑2‑1988 passed by Additional District Judge, Narowal whereby while accepting the appeal of respondent he vacated the temporary injunction granted to the petitioners by the trial Court on 23rd of September, 1987.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that in a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28‑4‑1987 was instituted by the petitioners, an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and section 151 CPC was filed for restraining the respondent from alienating the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. This application was granted by the trial Court on 23rd of September, 1987. However, on an appeal filed by the respondent, the Additional District Judge, Narowal proceeded to vacate the injunction and dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the valuation‑of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction was fixed in the plaint at Rs.2,80.000 and as such no appeal against the interim order could be filed before the District Court, which lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. Under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 an appeal to the District Judge lies if the value of the subject matter does not exceed Rs.2,00,
000. The learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to controvert this position. The judgment of the Additional District Judge is obviously without lawful authority.
4. It has also been brought to my notice that after the filing of present revision, the respondent realising the first appeal was incompetently filed by respondent before the District Judge, filed FAO No.82 of 1988 against the order of the trial Court, granting temporary injunction, in this Court which was dismissed on 11th May, 1988. The order granting temporary injunction has as such attained finality and cannot even otherwise be interfered with. On this ground also the revision petition merits acceptance. In view of what has been stated above this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 11‑2‑1988 of the Additional District Judge Narowal is set‑aside without any order as to costs. H.B.T./S‑524/L Revision accepted.