| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1955 SLG 50 1955 SLD 50 1955 PLD 96 |
Sindh High Court
Writ Petition No. 43 of 1954 decided on 9th February, 1955.
CONSTANTINE, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD BAKHSH, JUSTICE
D. N. Pritt, I. I. Chundrigar LVahid-ud-Din Ahmad, Manzar-e-Alam, Sharif-ud-Din, Muhammad Naseem and Homi P. Nocilwala, for Petitioner. Faiyaz Ali, Advocate-General of Pakistan assisted by Abdul Haq for
Respondents 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9. Manzur Qadir, assist
Writ Petition No. 43 of 1954 decided on 9th February, 1955.
CONSTANTINE, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD BAKHSH, JUSTICE
D. N. Pritt, I. I. Chundrigar LVahid-ud-Din Ahmad, Manzar-e-Alam, Sharif-ud-Din, Muhammad Naseem and Homi P. Nocilwala, for Petitioner. Faiyaz Ali, Advocate-General of Pakistan assisted by Abdul Haq for
Respondents 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9. Manzur Qadir, assist
Maulvi TAMIZUDDIN KHAN
VS
(1) FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, (2) MUHAMMAD ALI, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN (3) CHAUDHRI MUHAMMAD ALI, MEMBER, COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (4) MAJOR GENERAL ISKANDER MIRZA, MEMBER, COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (5) M. A. H. ISPAHANI, MEMBER, COUN
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 80-Notice Not meant as a trap for the plaintiff.Per Kayani, J-A notice is but a statement of the case according to the plaintiff's lights; and not a complete and correct of a Court of law. And when I use the word "correct " here, I mean that it should have been tested up to the final Court of appeal. It would mean that, in a difficult case, the notice should be the resultant effort of all available legal talent in the country as to the exact inferences to be drawn from a certain set of facts, but as even with that effort the ultimate judges may not agree, section 80 would prove a trap in many cases. AIR 1927 P C 176, AIR 1947 P C 197=P L D 1947' PC160,AIR1949PC143,AIR1949Mad.416,AIR1949 Mad. 214 I L R 38 Cal. 797, A I R 1926 Mad. 408, A I R 1938 Nag. 415 A I R 1943 Bom. 138, A I R. 1934 Pat. 701, A I R. 1942 Cal. 343 and I L R 2? Bom. 189 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S. 56 (d)-"Public duty" does not mean tortious act of officer of Government. Section 56 (d) of the Specific Relief Act does lay down that an injunction cannot be granted to interfere with the public duties of any department of a Provincial Government 1-gut one could hardly imagine a tortious act of an officer of Government to be a "public duty". Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd., v. Province of Punjab A I R 1943 Lah. 41 (F B) ref. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 55-Injunction to prevent breach of obligation can be issued. Section 55 enables the issue of an injunction "to prevent the breach of an obligation" and to compel performance of acts which are necessary to prevent such breach. Administrator Lahore Municipality v. Munirud Din A I R 1941 Lah. 200 ref. (d) Punjab Minor Canals Act (III of 1905), S. 2 (3)-Has no reference to relief to which canal-owner may be entitled under Ss. 5 to 8 of Canal and Drainage Act. Section 2 (3) of the Minor Canals Act has no reference to any relief to which a canal-owner may be entitled under sections 5 to 8 of the Canal and Drainage Act. (e) Government of India Act, 1935, S. 299-"Immovable property"-Water-Right to use water is immovable property. Water, as long as it is flowing in the bed of a stream or…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492