1987 PLP 643 (CLC)
AFTAB AHMAD SHAIKH, ADVOCATE‑‑Applicant Versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA
| Citation | 1987 PLP 643 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J |
| Parties | AFTAB AHMAD SHAIKH, ADVOCATE‑‑Applicant Versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 643 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 643 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 643 (CLC) (AFTAB AHMAD SHAIKH, ADVOCATE‑‑Applicant Versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hameed Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Concurrent findings of fact‑ ‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Findings of fact concurrently arrived at by Courts below, held, could only be interfered with by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction where any illegality, irregularity or discrepancy was pointed out in such findings. P L D 1983 S C 53; 1982 S C M R 843 and 1986 S C M R 412 rel. Aftab Ahmed Shaikh for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Hameed Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1986. This Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C. has been filed against the concurrent findings whereby injunction has been declined to applicant. Suit for declaration and injunction was filed on 16‑4‑1984 and application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 read with 151, C.P.C. was filed on the same day. The application has been dismissed by VIIth Extra Joint Civil Judge, Hyderabad by an order dated 13‑11‑1985. Appellant went in appeal the same was also dismissed by the III‑Additional District Judge Hyderabad. The prayer of the appellant in his suit as under:‑ (a) that the installation of Over Head High Tension Line 11000 K . V . Passing through and nearby the house of the plaintiff (Noor Plaza multi‑storeyed building at Jamia Masjid Road, Hirabad Hyderabad declared, illegal, and in violation of safety Rules and Laws of electricity. (b) through Mandatory Injunction the defendants be directed to remove at least two last poles of High Tension Line 11000 K . V . from the end of office point of defendant No.3. (c) for any other relief which is just and proper under the circumstances of this case be granted in favour of plaintiff and in his application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. it is prayed for ad‑interim Mandatory Injunction against the defendant for providing and fixing Defitting for disconnecting the alive power of High Tension Line 11000 K.V. last two poles.I have heard Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shaikh and Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan Advocate. The application has been dismissed by the joint Civil Judge by a detail order and considered all aspects of the case. His order is well reasoned. While dismissing the appeal the learned III‑Additional District Judge Hyderabad has rightly held that injunction in such really granted in exceptional circumstances. The concurrent findings are only interfered when illegality and irregularity is pointed out. The learned counsel has not pointed any discrepancy in the orders. I refer to cases reported in P L D 1983, SC 53; 1982 S C M R 843 and 1986 S C M R
412. The application is without force and it is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H . B . T . / 5032 / K Revision application dismissed.