1978 PLP 334 (SCMR)
AMIR KHAN-Petitioner Versus FATEH KHAN ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | 1978 PLP 334 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMIR KHAN-Petitioner Versus FATEH KHAN ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 334 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 334 (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: 1978 PLP 334 (SCMR) (AMIR KHAN-Petitioner Versus FATEH KHAN ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan M. Yunas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qurashi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Khan M. Yunas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qurashi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 185-Leave to appeal-Interlocutory order 3ssed by High -Court-Held, not appeal able to Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
WAHEEDUDDIN AHAMAD, J.‑This petition is directed against the Order of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 83 of 1973, dated 24‑6‑
74. Order, which was confirmed after notice. The dispute between the parties is in respect of a wall, which has been erected by the respondent. It is alleged by the petitioner that there is no passage for the respondent to pass through his land. The learned Civil Judge and the learned District Judge had decided in favour of the petitioner. The matter is now under consideration in Regular Second Appeal No. 83 of 1974. In Civil Miscellaneous No. 1924/C/73 a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has declined to vacate the stay order. In an earlier order dated 31‑5‑74 the High Court had observed that Exh. 4 proved that there is a passage to the north of the plaintiff's lawn, and confirmed the stay order on this ground. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said Order After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears to us the petition for special leave to appeal had been filed against an interlocutory order. No appeal lay against such an order. We do not, therefore, consider this as a fit case for appeal to this Court: Moreover, as .has been pointed by the High Court, Exh. P shows that there is a passage to the north of the plaintiff's lawn. Prima facie therefore, there was good ground for the High Court to confirm the stay order. There is no force in this petition. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.