1982 PLP 461 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHANI-Petitioner Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, THAL-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 461 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI-Petitioner Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, THAL-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 461 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 461 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 461 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHANI-Petitioner Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, THAL-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qureshi Mahmood Ahmed, (Absent) Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 21st February, 1981.
- Qureshi Mahmood Ahmed, (Absent) Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On petition against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 30-6-1975 in Civil Revision No. 688/1975).
Art. 185(3)-Lease agreement Allotment, cancellation of Leave to appeal sought on ground of onus of proof having been wrongly placed on petitioner, record of case having been with respondent-Law, providing for coercive process, petitioner ought to have resorted to that for purposes of having record produced in case of being not produced despite being summoned-Leave to appeal declined.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑Plot No. 356 was allotted to the petitioner on 14‑4‑1953 and possession was duly delivered to him after a regular contract was entered into on 4‑5‑1953. This allotment was later cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had failed to perform his part of the lease agreement.
2. The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration that since the Administrator of Thai Development Authority had defaulted, in performing his part of the contract, he may be precluded from implementing those terms which were to be put into execution by him. The suit was dismissed on 17‑6‑1974 as the learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was in any way in default. The District Judge dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff on 13‑3‑1975 and a Civil Revision No. 688/1975 was dismissed by the High Court on the 30th of June, 1975 where for this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the onus of proof was wrongly placed on the petitioner because the record was with the Depart ment. The simple answer to this is that it was for the petitioner to summon the record from the Department. Learned counsel replied by saying that the Department did not produce the record despite that it was called on to do so. Law provides for coercive process and it was for the plaintiff‑petitioner to have resorted to that for the purpose of having the record produced and if he did not do so he is himself to blame for it. This petition has no merits and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.