1983 PLP 924 (CLC)
NIZAMUDDIN‑Appellant Versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,
| Citation | 1983 PLP 924 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | NIZAMUDDIN‑Appellant Versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 924 (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 1983 PLP 924 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 924 (CLC) (NIZAMUDDIN‑Appellant Versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. M. A. Pirzada for Petitioner.
- Shamsher 4bal Chaghtai for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXIX, r. 2‑Recovery of definite amount‑Irreparable injury Plaintiff applying nor, temporary injunction to restrain recovery of Rs. 32,520.40 (as excise duty) by Department ‑‑ Held, amount definite and injury not irreparable if this money recovered.
Judgment & Decree
O. XXXIX, r. 2‑Recovery of definite amount‑Irreparable injury Plaintiff applying nor, temporary injunction to restrain recovery of Rs. 32,520.40 (as excise duty) by Department ‑‑ Held, amount definite and injury not irreparable if this money recovered. M. M. A. Pirzada for Petitioner. Shamsher 4bal Chaghtai for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1982. This revision petition has assailed the validity of order dated 17‑6‑1978 passed by the learned Civil Judge Chishtian Camp at Bahawalnagar who had refused to issue a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was served with a notice to pay Rs. 32,520.40 as exist duty of tobacco. He sought the assistance of the learned trial Court for having a declaration that he was not liable to pay this amount as Nizamuddin the person who was actually liable was someone also. He sought a temporary injunction against they respondents restraining the latter from recovering the said amount from him. The grant of temporary injunction was denied to the petitioner and he has filed this civil revision against the said order.
3. It may be noted that the learned trial Court has stated in the impugned judgment that the petitioner is a partner of the firm namely Messrs Muhammad Yahya Nizamuddin & Co., and as a partner of the said firm, the petitioner executed an agreement and had obtained the licence for running the business of tobacco. The contention that Nizamuddin, the partner of the firm was some one else was found incorrect. Secondly it is a definite amount and it cannot be termed as an irreparable injury it this is recovered. Lastly, the public duties of a Department cannot belong interfered with as envisaged under section 56‑A of the Specific Relief Act.
4. The learned trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and has trot committed any illegality or material irregularity in the pronouncement of impugned judgment. The civil revision fails and stands dismissed with costs. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.