1989 PLP 1737 (MLD)
HAMEED AHMAD AYAS — Petitioner Versus GHULAM RAIDER and 3 others — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1737 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAMEED AHMAD AYAS — Petitioner Versus GHULAM RAIDER and 3 others — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1737 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1737 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1737 (MLD) (HAMEED AHMAD AYAS — Petitioner Versus GHULAM RAIDER and 3 others — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ---Art.199--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss. 15--Record of case stated to be misplaced and while reconstituting record, Rent Controller allegedly allowed respondent to tile certain documents which were not part of original record--Matter relating tit question of fact which could not be gone into in Constitutional petition--Proper remedy for petitioner was to raise the, plea in grounds of appeal if case was decided against him.
- Ghulam Ghous for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, C. J.--The above petition is directed against the orders dated 23-7-1988 and 15-1-1989 passed by the learned 1Ind Sr. Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi East, in Rent Case No. 1999 of 1982. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Sr. Civil Judge/Rent Controller while reconstituting the record which was misplaced as brought on record certain documents at the behest of the respondent No.1 which were not factually part of the original record and there were certain applications, which were not supported by affidavits and were not brought oil record. The order allowing the above documents is dated 23rd July, 1988 referred to hereinabove. After that the petitioner filed a review application, which was also dismissed by the second impugned order 15-1-1989, The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition. Mr. Ghulam Ghous, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that since the petitioner has no other remedy, the only remedy available to him, is -to file a writ petition against the aforesaid illegal orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller in allowing the respondent No.1 to File certain documents, which were not part of the original record. In our view, we cannot go into the above disputed question of fact in a Constitutional Petition. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to raise a ground in the appeal if the case is decided against him. The Appellate Court will be competent to go into the above question. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H/H.153/K Petition dismissed.