1986 PLP 184 (SCMR)
Mst. AURANG ZAIB BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Multan‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 184 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C. J., Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. AURANG ZAIB BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Multan‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 184 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 184 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C. J., Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 184 (SCMR) (Mst. AURANG ZAIB BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Multan‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Alyas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr.l & 2‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑No question of law involved‑‑Discretion exercised by Courts below in refusing petitioner's application for issuance of temporary injunction pending disposal of his suit for declaration, not open to any exception‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑ This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 17‑3‑1985 dismissing petitioner's revision application against the order of the Civil Judge, Multan, dated 14‑3‑1984, by which petitioner's application for the issuance of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit for declaration filed by her was rejected, which order was upheld on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Multan. After having heard the learned counsel in the light of record before us, we find that no question‑of law is involved, and the discretion exercised by the Courts below is not open to any exception on grounds of law. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M. Y. H. Leave refused.