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.
Revision No.GA‑226 of 1985, decided on 13th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A s 38(3‑a)‑‑Interim injunction‑‑Change of during pendency of case‑‑Labour Court granting stay order restraining employer from ejecting petitioner from residential quarter‑‑Stay granted in view of statement of counsel of employer that there would be no objection to stay order if main case decided within one month‑‑Petitioner undertaking to vacate quarter by specified date‑‑Case lingering on‑‑Labour Court subsequently changing stay order and allowing petitioner 15 days to vacate quarter‑‑Subsequent order of Labour Court, held, not exceptionable in circumstances.
Muhammad Amin for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 30th September, 1985.
The order, dated 13‑7‑1985 is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. Previously, stay was issued restraining the respondents from ejecting the petitioner from the quarter occupied by him till the decision of the main case. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed allowing 15 days to the petitioner to vacate the quarter. It has been argued that the order, dated 3‑6‑1985 could not be changed afterwards. Outwardly the argument appears to be forceful but in reality it has no force. True facts and circumstances in which the order, dated 3‑6‑1985 was passed have not been disclosed in the revision, nor during arguments. The first order was passed in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents. His statement was that if the main case was decided within one month, he would have no objection to the stay order. Short dates of 5 days were given which show that the stay order was issued on the understanding that the case would be decided within one month but when it lingered on for the reason that a new person came forward to be impleaded as party, the stay order was changed. The petitioner took 15 days to vacate the quarter, so vide the impugned order stay was extended upto 29‑7‑1985 on the statement of the petitioner. Since the petitioner undertook to vacate the quarter upto 29‑7‑1985 and on his this statement the stay order was passed, he cannot challenge the same.
3. As a result, the revision is dismissed.
A.E. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer