1991 PLP 1361 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1361 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1361 (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 1991 PLP 1361 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1361 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Sher Alam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th August, 1989.
- Mian Sher Alam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 19-12-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Civil Revisions No. 731 and 732 of 1985).
O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-- Temporary injunction
Contention that certain observations made by High Court in the order refusing to grant temporary injunction, could adversely affect case of petitioners during trial before lower Court
Supreme Court while dismissing petitions as without merit observed that order passed by Supreme Court dismissing petitions and other orders of refusal should not influence course of trial of suit.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Temporary injunction‑‑‑Contention that certain observations made by High Court in the order refusing to grant temporary injunction, could adversely affect case of petitioners during trial before lower Court‑‑‑Supreme Court while dismissing petitions as without merit observed that order passed by Supreme Court dismissing petitions and other orders of refusal should not influence course of trial of suit. Mian Sher Alam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th August, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions by the plaintiffs against the dismissal; by the High Court, of their Civil Revisions. They had arisen out of the rejection of the petitioners' applications for temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants. After some arguments the learned counsel frankly stated that the real grievance of the petitioners is that certain observations have been made in the order refusing to grant temporary injunction which might adversely affect the case of the petitioners during the trial before the learned lower Court. Accordingly, while dismissing these petitions as without merit in so far as the discretionary order of refusal to grant temporary injunction is concerned, it is observed that this and the other orders of refusal shall not influence the course of the trial of the suit. With these observations these petitions are dismissed. H.B.T./N‑209/S Order accordingly.