1989 PLP 1593 (SCMR)
Sh. HANEEF‑UR‑REHMAN Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD JALALUDDIN Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1593 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. HANEEF‑UR‑REHMAN Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD JALALUDDIN Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1593 (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 1593 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1593 (SCMR) (Sh. HANEEF‑UR‑REHMAN Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD JALALUDDIN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M.G. Nawaz Daccawala, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/Orders of the Sind High Court, Karachi in First Regular Appeal No.501 of 1983, dated 1st July, 1987). ‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Compromise‑‑Parties arrived at compromise out of Court‑‑Judgment of High Court and eviction order of Rent Controller were set aside in view of compromise.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑Learned counsel for the parties have fled a compromise application in the Court praying that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties outside the Court, respondent undertakes not to execute the ejectment order against the appellant in respect of the demised premises and he has also no objection if the appeal is allowed, by consent, and impugned orders of the Judgment passed against appellant are set aside. In, view of the compromise between the parties, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court and the impugned order of the Rent A Controller directing eviction of the appellant are set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs. With the disposal of the appeal Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also disposed of in the above terms. M.A.K./H‑67/5. Appeal accepted.