MLD 1986

1986 PLP 869 (MLD)

NOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji PIR BAKHSH‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 491 of 1984, decided on 7th February, 1984.
Honorable Judges
Manzoor Hussain Sial, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 PLP 869 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Manzoor Hussain Sial, J
Parties NOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji PIR BAKHSH‑‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 869 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 869 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 869 (MLD) (NOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji PIR BAKHSH‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Khawaja Saeed‑uz‑Zafar for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.9‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Interlocutory order passed by Rent Controller‑‑Adequate remedy by way of appeal available to petitioner against such interlocutory order‑‑Interference declined in constitutional jurisdiction.

Judgment & Decree

This writ petition is directed against order, dated 19‑1‑1984 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore whereby he did not allow production of certain documents on the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller acted ‑ arbitrarily in refusing to bring on the record the requisite documents while he had allowed the opposite party to produce similar documents on the file. He, however, did not deny that in the event an order of ejectment is finally passed against him the impugned interlocutory order would be assailable in appeal before the first appellate authority. In this view of the matter, since another adequate remedy o appeal is available to the petitioner against the impugned interlocutor order, in case, an order of ejectment is passed against him this petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed in limine. M . Y. H . Petition dismissed.