1996SCMR533 (PLP)
AHMED BUX & SONS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ISMAIL ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996SCMR533 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | AHMED BUX & SONS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ISMAIL ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR533 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR533 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR533 (PLP) (AHMED BUX & SONS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ISMAIL ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th December, 1993.
- A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Sindh High Court dated 23‑5‑1993 passed in FRA No. 381/89). ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R. 21‑‑‑Ex parte proceedings in appeal‑‑‑Tenant's application for. rehearing of, appeal was dismissed by the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Bailiff's report indicated that tenant was not served with notice of appeal but in spite of that appeal was heard and decided against tenant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in view of the fact that tenant was not served with notice of appeal, High Court should have granted tenant's application for re‑hearing of appeal.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 23-5-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court an application under Order XLI, rule 21, C.P.C. read with section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 filed by the petitioner in F.R.A No.381/89, for re-hearing of the appeal which was heard and allowed by the learned Judge in Chambers on 8-3-1992 in the absence of the petitioner who was 'respondent in the above F.R:A. and whereby respondent's ejectment application was granted, dismissing the same on the ground that the above provisions of C.P.C. were not applicable to .F.R.As. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal. We have heard Mr. A.A. Siddiqi, learned A.S.C. for the petitioner and have also perused the record of the High Court in respect of the above F.R.A. The bailiff's report dated 7-3-1992 indicates that the petitioner was not served with the notice of the appeal. In spite of that appeal was heard on 8-3-1992 and was decided against the petitioner. We are inclined to grant leave to consider, whether in view of the fact that the petitioner was not served with the notice of the appeal, the learned Judge in Chambers should have granted the petitioner's above application for re-hearing of the appeal. Leave is accordingly granted. The petitioner shall not be ejected till further order of this Court subject to payment of rent regularly. A.A./A-1247/S Leave granted