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 Revision No. 153 of 1979/BWP, decided on 8th December, 1982.
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.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer