Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

FEROZE DIN versus EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE


Article 185 (3) Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O xxxxx, rr l & 2 Engineers denied on the ground that the applicants had failed to make our first case, the High Court agreed with the lower court's review and may There was only one thing in which the applicant could petition in support of an appeal for leave that the denial suit in which the order was sought for restraint was, in all likelihood, as the petitioner's counsel now decided. Given that he does not know anything about the fate of the suit, the appeal for the appeal was denied
1985 S C M R 148

Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ

FEROZE DIN and others--Petitioners

versus

EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE and others--Respondents

Civil Petition No.174 of 1977, decided on 4th June, 1984.

(On appeal from the .judgment, dated 15-2-1977 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.125 of 1977).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--

--Art.185 (3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, rr.l & 2--Injunction refused on ground that petitioners had failed to make our a prima facie case--High Court agreed with assessment of lower Court and there was hardly anything which petitioner could urge in support of petition for leave to appeal against said refusal--Suit in which injunction was sought, had in all probability, since been decided by now--Counsel of petitioner knowing nothing about fate of said suit- Petition for leave .to appeal refused in circumstances.

Raja Muhammad Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Zafar Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 4th June, 1984.

ORDER

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--

The District Judge had dismissed the petition for injunction filed by the petitioners on 27-1-1977. This order was challenged by a revision before the High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide his order, dated 15-2-1977. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the said order and has come up for hearing today.

The injunction was refused on the ground that the petitioners had failed to make out a prima facie case. The High Court agreed with this assessment and there is hardly anything which the learned counsel for the petitioners could urge in support of this petition.

Moreover, the injunction was refused by the District Judge vide an order passed by him on 27-1-1977. The suit, in which this injunction was sought, 'has, in all probability, since been decided by now. The learned counsel, however, knew nothing about the fate of the said) suit.

This is, therefore, not at all a fit case for interference.

M. Z . M . Petition refused

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
when you need a advocate from Mian Chunnu lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.