1985 PLP 1562 (MLD)
ISRAR AHMAD — Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1562 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, J |
| Parties | ISRAR AHMAD — Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1562 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1562 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1562 (MLD) (ISRAR AHMAD — Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Siddiqui for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 21--Cross-objections--Right to file--In absence of any express provision right to file cross-objections to appeal, held, could not be imported on basis of equitable principles as contained n Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Right to file cross-objections was in fact akin to right to file appeal--In case respondent was aggrieved by any portion of order under appeal, he could file appeal in terms of section 21 of Ordinance, 1979. Messrs Bombino Ltd. v. Messrs Selmor International Limited and another P L D 1983 S C 155 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
S. 21--Cross-objections--Right to file--In absence of any express provision right to file cross-objections to appeal, held, could not be imported on basis of equitable principles as contained n Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Right to file cross-objections was in fact akin to right to file appeal--In case respondent was aggrieved by any portion of order under appeal, he could file appeal in terms of section 21 of Ordinance, 1979. Messrs Bombino Ltd. v. Messrs Selmor International Limited and another P L D 1983 S C 155 distinguished. A.R. Siddiqui for Respondent. These are the cross-objections filed to this appeal. I had granted time to Mr. Siddiqui to satisfy me as to how these cross-objections are maintainable. He has cited the case of Messrs Bambino Ltd. v. Messrs Selmor International Limited and another,' reported in P L D 1983 S C 155, in support of his contention that though under section 20 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 only certain provisions of the C . P. C . have been made applicable to the rent proceedings under the Ordinance, but the Court has still the power to apply equitable principles contained in the C.P.C. in appropriate cases. In the latter case the question was, as to the procedure which was to be applied in execution of an ejectment order. In my view, the above case has no application. It may be observed that the right to file cross-objections is in fact akin to the right to file an appeal. Under the late W.P.U.R.R. Ordinance, 1959 cross-objections were entertained as under section 15 of the Sind Ordinance an appeal was to be treated as an appeal under the C . P. C . for the purpose of procedure. In the present Ordinance there is no similar provision contained in section 21 of the Ordinance. If the respondent was aggrieved by any portion of the order under appeal, it wag upon him to file an appeal in terms of section 21 within 30 days. However, in the absence of any express provision, in my view the right to file cross-objections to an appeal cannot be imported on the basis of equitable principles. I have held in many cases that cross- objections being incompetent are, therefore, dismissed. H . B . T . Cross-objections dismissed.