Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 3232 = 1980 SLD 3232 = 1980 CLC 1571
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1119 of 1979, decided on 2nd January, 1980,
Presented By: Khurshid Ahmad, J
Malik Gul Hassan and 2 others v. Malik Hajf Ismatullah and 6 others P L D 1978 Quetta 164 ; Muhammad 1dris v. The Collector of Customs, Karachi and another P L D 1971 Kar. 736 and Pakistan Transport Company Ltd., Jhang v. Shorkot Transport Company (Regd.) P L D 1961 Lah. 326 rel. Syed Muhammad Jalaluddin Khalid for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for
Respondent.

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERSPetitioner'

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD AKRAMRespondent

Law: West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, (XX of 1958)

Section: 7

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XXXIX, r. 2

West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act (XX of 1958)  S. 7 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 2Temporary injunctionJurisdiction..Authorisation being suspended by competent authority holder not avail ing of remedies provided under West Pakistan Wheat, Wheat Atta, Maize, Rice and Sugar Distribution Order, 1967, but straightaway instituting civil suit and applying for temporary injunction Jurisdiction of civil Court, held, barred under S. 7, West Pakistan . Foodstuffs (Control) Act (XX of 1958). Date hearing : 4th December 1979.                                                                                                                                    JUDGMENT This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1119 of 1979 an& Civil Revision No. 1118 of 1979 as they raise common questions of law and facts. 2. Civil Revision No. 1119/79 relates to the village Gohadpur while Civil Revision No. 1118/79 relates to village Gujral. The respon dents in the two revisions were authorisation holders for their respective villages and running depots since 1967, and filed two suits for the declar ation that the order of suspension of their authorisation was illegal, ultra vires and void. Along with the suit there was an application for the grant of temporary injunction till the final disposal of the suit that the f1peration of the order of suspension and an injunction restraining the authorities from issuing the ration quota to anybody other than the res pondent. The learned trial Court after a detail examination of the case of the respondent came to the conclusion that the respondent in both the cases was ostensibly at fault and as such no prima facie case had been made oat. It was further observed that any grant of temporary injunction in the circumstances of the case would have the effect of interfering in the internal…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register