Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 289 of 1974, decided on 22nd October 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 31‑10‑1913 in Civil Revision No. 708 of 1968).
--Art. 199‑Writ‑Petitioner's civil suit and also writ petition already pending‑High Court's order setting aside District Judge's order dismissing respondent's appeal against issuance of temporary injunction, held, would not, in circumstances, affect petitioner and obviously petitioner does not stand to suffer in any manner -Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Khalilur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd October 1974.
‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 31‑10‑73 whereby the learned Judge in Chamber allowed Civil Revision No. 708 of 1968 filed by the Government of Pakistan and set aside the order of the learned District Judge, Lahore dated 25‑9‑1968 dismissing respondents' appeal against the issuance of temporary injunction on the ground of limitation.
Petitioner being the highest bidder in a public auction held by the Settlement Authorities out 12‑4‑62 for the sale of Capital Cinema, Lahore, offered a bid of Rs. 36 lacs which was accepted. Sale was confirmed on 21‑7‑62. The amount was to be paid in 36 monthly instalments. Having accepted compensation books for a sizable amount and also having liberally allowed several opportunities to the petitioner to make the payment, the Settlement Authorities issued a notice to her for the proposed cancellation of the sale on account of default. She challenged the legality of the notice by filing a civil suit and prayed for a temporary injunction. This prayer was resisted by the respondents but was allowed by the Civil Judge vide order dated 25‑7‑68. The order was challenged in appeal by the respondents before the District Judge on 23‑9‑1968 which was dismissed as barred by time vide order dated 25‑9‑1968 which as stated earlier was successfully challenged by them in the High Court.
Learned counsel concedes that during the pendency of the suit the sale was cancelled on 28‑3‑74 for default in payment of the price. This order has been separately assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in the High Court which has been admitted to full hearing and stay has also been granted, as stated before us.
Having heard the learned counsel we are of the view that no fault can be found with the revisional order of the learned Judge in Chamber. The petitioner's civil suit and also the writ petition are pending and obviously she does not stand to suffer in any manner. The petition is therefore dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer