| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 2385 2006 SLD 2385 2006 SCMR 21 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.2785-L of 2004, decision dated: 4-04-2005
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petition No.2785-L of 2004, decision dated: 4-04-2005
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
NESTLE MILKPAK LIMITED
VS
CLASSIC NEEDS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. and 3 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115 & O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Ad interim stay, when a `case decided'---Plaintiff being aggrieved of award of contract to defendant filed suit and sought interim injunction---Trial Court dismissed the application for interim injunction---Appeal was filed against dismissal of stay application and Appellate Court granted ad-interim injunction at the time of filing of appeal and suspended the contract---Defendant assailed ad-interim injunction before High Court in revisional jurisdiction---High Court set aside ad-interim injunction and directed the Appellate Court to decide appeal after hearing the parties---Plea raised by plaintiff was that no revision could be filed before High Court as order passed by Appellate Court was not a `case decided'---Validity---Order which did not qualify the test of `case decided' could not be challenged in revisional jurisdiction under S.115 C.P.C.---Normally revision petition against interim order was not maintainable but interim order which was passed after considering the facts, if found perverse or suffering from jurisdictional defect, revisional Court could, in the interest of justice, interfere in such order---Order passed in improper exercise of jurisdiction if was not interfered with, it might lead to injustice or hardship and if an interim order by its inception appeared to be final order and also had effect of final order, such order could be corrected in revisional jurisdiction---Court at the time of preliminary hearing of a matter, was expected to also safeguard interest of the party which was not present before the Court and should not pass order at such stage which might cause inconvenience to other parties or public in general---Supreme Court set aside both the orders passed by Appellate Court in appeal as well as by High Court in revision and remanded the case to District Judge for decision of appeal after hearing both the parties---Petition was disposed of accordingly. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revision Expression `case…
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