1989 PLP 3950 (MLD)
M.J.A. GUZDAR — Applicant Versus GHULAM ALI W. SHAIKH and other — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3950 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Tanzil-ur-Rehman, J |
| Parties | M.J.A. GUZDAR — Applicant Versus GHULAM ALI W. SHAIKH and other — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3950 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3950 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Tanzil-ur-Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3950 (MLD) (M.J.A. GUZDAR — Applicant Versus GHULAM ALI W. SHAIKH and other — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Murtaza Hussain, A: G. Sindh for Respondent (on Court Notice).
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25, 27 & 27-A--Distress warrant--Application for the issuing of No final order was passed on application by Judge, Small Cause Court, and he only ordered issue of notice to respondent which he had jurisdiction to do in keeping with basic norms of justice--Judge Small Cause Court, had not decided the case by his said orders as envisaged under S. 25, Small Cause Courts Act, 1887--Held, there being no provision of law that Judge was bound to issue warrant on presentation of application forthwith without notice to respondent, orders passed by Judge were not illegal and there being no final order, revision against said order was not maintainable. S.M. Hamid Ali v. C.R. Machado P L D 1963(W.P.)Kar. 715 ref. Applicant in person.
Judgment & Decree
2. The facts giving rise to the above revision application briefly stated, are that the applicant filed a distress warrant application under Section 27-A of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the respondent in the Court of Small Cause at Karachi in the month of October, 1987. In the said application, it was stated by the applicant that respondent is the applicant's tenant in respect of a portion of Gazdar Building at Rs.60 per month. The respondent, however, failed to pay the rent due. By the said application the applicant claimed arrears of rent for-the period from 1-10-1986 to 30th September, 1987 and prayed for the issue of distress warrant against the respondent, under the provision of Section 27-A of the said Act.
3. The learned Judge by his order dated 20-10-1987 admitted the said distress warrant application, which was registered as D.W. Application No 41/87. The learned Judge also ordered issue of notice to the other side. On 16-7-1988 the applicant was present but the respondent was not served and so the learned Judge ordered the issue of notice of D.W Application to the respondent for 27-8 1988.
4. The applicant being aggrieved of the said orders dated 20-10-1987 and 16-7-1988 has filed the above application.
5. The applicant submits that the learned Judge Small Cause Court should have ordered the issue of distress warrant on presentation of the application forthwith, which was supported by his affidavit and should not have ordered the issue of notice to the applicant.
6. In support, reliance was placed by him on Rules 233-240 of the Karachi small Cause Court Rules. The applicant also placed his reliance on the case reported as S.M. Hamid Ali v. C. R. Machado (PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 715).
7. The Karachi Small Cause Court Act was repealed by Section 7 of the ordinance III of 1962 whereby Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 was made applicable to Karachi as well. The applicant has not been able to satisfy me that the Karachi Small Cause Rules notwithstanding repeal of the Karachi Small Cause Courts Act, are applicable to the proceedings under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Reliance on the case, PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 715, is also misconceived, inasmuch as in that case the application under Section 18 of the Karachi Small Cause Courts Act was pending on the date of the repeal of the Karachi Small Cause Courts Act, and, therefore, it was held that notwithstanding the repeal of the Karachi Small Cause Court Act, as the matter was pending in the Court on the day when the Act was repealed, the applicant had acquired a vested right to take out and continue with the proceedings for ejectment under the provisions of the repealed Act because the right being vested prior to repeal cannot be taken away, unless such intention is clear from the repealing enactment. The facts of the cited case are distinguishable as in the present case the proceedings have been initiated by the applicant in October 1987, about 25 years after the repeal of the said Act.
8. It may further be added that Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 provides that: "Sec.25--The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Cause was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit."
9. The revision, therefore, does not appear to be maintainable as by passing two orders impugned in this revision application, the learned Judge has not' decided the case by those orders. There is no final order passed on the application by the learned Judge. He had only ordered issue of notice to the respondent which he had jurisdiction to do, in keeping with the basic norms of justice. In the absence of any provision that the learned Judge was bound to issue distress warrant without notice to the respondent, this application is misconceived. It cannot be said that the two impugned orders passed by the Court were not according to law.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision application is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./M-852/K Petition dismissed.