Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1.981, decided on 12th October, 1985.
(On appeal from judgment, dated 16‑2‑1981 of the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No. 4 of 1981).
--‑Arts. 1650) & 199‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX....rr 1 &. 2‑‑‑Leave: to appeal granted to examine correctness of order of High Court vacating its earlier order of status quo during pendency of writ petition when all requirements necessary for issuance of interim relief appeared to exist in case.
‑‑‑O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑‑Respondent not opposing prayer of appellant that status quo earlier vacated by High Court may continue during pendency of writ petition before High Court but praying that said writ petition might be heard within one month thereafter---Order accordingly.
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
Respondent No. 1 in person (absent).
Qazi M. Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court with J.D. Akbarji, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing: 12th October, 1985.
‑‑ This appeal, by leave of this Court, directed against an order; dated 16th February, 1981 passed by the Peshawar High Court whereby an earlier order dated 12‑1‑1981 passed by it directing maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the writ petition was vacated but the main writ petition was ordered to be' fixed for hearing "positively within one month from this date."
This Court while granting leave on 24th 'February, 1981 noted that all the requirements necessary for issuance of interim relief appeared to exist in the case and the correctness of the order vacating earlier order of status quo required consideration.
It was also directed that the appeal shall early date on the existing record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents.
Interim stay was also granted but it was observed "that the High Court will proceed to hear the main petition in accordance with the direction contained in the impugned order" of the High Court, dated 16‑2‑1983.
When the appeal came up for hearing today we discovered that neither of these two directions had been complied with. The appeal has come up after more than four years, instead of at an early date and the High Court has not disposed of the matter in accordance with its own directions contained in its order, dated 16‑2‑1.981 that it will be heard within one month 'positively'.
It appears that the office called for the records of the case from the High Court contrary to the directions contained in the leave granting order, which has prevented the High Court from proceeding further in the matter.
Be that as it may the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has not now opposed the prayer of the appellants that the status quo may continue during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court but prayed that the said writ petition might be hear within one month from today as originally directed by the High Court itself.
This appeal is allowed by consent. The order, dated 16‑2‑1981 is set aside to the extent that the status quo will be maintained during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court but the remaining part of the order, dated 16‑2‑1981 that the writ petition shall be fixed 'positively' within one month is maintained.
In the light of the altered circumstances, the aforementioned period of one month shall start from the date of the records are received back in the Peshawar High Court from this Court.
This appeal is allowed in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer