Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WAHIDA AKHTAR VS Respondent: AMTUL GHAFOOR
1988 S C M R 235
1988 S C M R 235
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ
Mst.WAHIDA AKHTAR--Petitioner
versus
Mst. AMTUL GHAFOOR and others--Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.839 of 1987, decided on 25th November, 1987.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 25th May, 1985 in Writ Petition No.2210 of 1985).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--
---O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)- Temporary injunction--Petitioner's application was rejected by Trial Court and revisional Court and writ petition was also dismissed by High Court on ground that no interference was called for in the matter of grant or refusal of temporary injunction in pending suits--No question of law having been raised, no interference, held, was called for in an interlocutory order passed in the case--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
M.Saleem Shahnazi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh.Salahuddin, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
Abdul Majeed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th November, 1987.
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Mst.Waheeda Akhtar petitioner and is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 25th May, 1985 passed in Writ Petition No.2210 of 1985.
In this case litigation is pending between the parties and the Civil Judge Lahore had dismissed the application of the petitioner for the grant of interim injunction and for the maintenance of status quo. Against that interlocutory order the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. Thereafter, the orders of the Additional District Judge as well as of' the Civil Judge were challenged by her by way of writ petition' which has been dismissed on the ground that no interference was called for in the matter of grant or refusal of temporary injunction in pending suits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that a case was made out for the grant of temporary injunction and the maintenance of status quo but in our view no question o law has been raised and consequently no interference is called for in an interlocutory order passed in this case. In that view of the matter this petition is dismissed.
S.Q./W-15/S Petition dismissed.