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. 707 of 1974, decided on 29th May 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Circuit, Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid, dated 25‑6‑1974 dismissing F. A. O. No. 88/75/B WP).
‑‑ O. XXXIX, r. 1‑ Injunction, interlocutory ‑Respondents counsel undertaking on respondents' behalf not to sell machinery and accessories Is of factory except with prior permission of trial Court and notice to petitioner and also to install new machinery with notice to petitioner Undertaking accepted by petitioner's counsel‑Undertaking reached by parties, held, will supersede order refusing grant of injunction by trial Court [injunction].
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 3.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
Date of hearing . 29th May 1975.
‑The petitioner herein and his wife Mst. Mehr‑un- Nisa purchased at an suction sale, an evacuee concern called. Shivji Cotton Ginning Factory situate at Liaqatpur. in Rahimyar Khan District. Sub sequently by two agreements dated .3‑9‑1971 and 7‑9‑1971, they surrendered their rights in the factory in favour of a registered partnership firm com prising the petitioner and the four respondents as its members in which they were to have 20% share each. The partnership agreement, Inter alia, provided for reference to arbitration of all disputes arising between the partners in relation to the partnership.
Certain disputes over the sale of machinery and some accessories of the factory and utilisation of the sale proceeds thereof having arisen between the parties, the petitioner moved an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 194 in the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan for the appointment of arbitrator. The petitioner also applied under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C. for interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from selling the machinery and other accessories of the factory during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. The learned trial Judge by order dated 8‑2‑1973 refused the application for injunction. On appeal by the petitioner the order of the trial Judge has been maintained by the High Court vide order dated 25‑6‑1974 against which the petitioner now seeks leave to appeal.
In the course of the hearing of the petition, the respondents' learned counsel who appeared as a caveator gave an undertaking on their behalf that they would not sell the machinery and accessories of the factory except with prior permission of the trial Court seized of the application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act and notice to the petitioner and also install the new machinery with notice to the petitioner. The petitioner's learned counsel accepted the above undertaking given by the caveators' learned counsel and did not press the petition.
The understanding reached by the parties will supersede the order refusing the grant of injunction by the learned trial Court. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer