1992 PLP 1218 (MLD)
FAZLUR REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HABIB BANK LTD.‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1218 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | FAZLUR REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HABIB BANK LTD.‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1218 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1218 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1218 (MLD) (FAZLUR REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HABIB BANK LTD.‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Irshad Ahmed Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Alternate remedy available‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Petitioner tenant was given several opportunities to produce evidence after framing of the issues but he failed to do so and his. evidence was closed and case was fixed for arguments‑‑‑Held; application for ejectment against petitioner was still pending decision and was at the stage of arguments and if the said application was decided against him he would be able to challenge the order of eviction before the Appellate Tribunal and, while so doing, he would be at liberty to assail the order relating to the closure of evidence also‑‑‑In view‑of the availability of the remedy of appeal to the petitioner in the event of his failure in the ejectment application, High Court declined the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction in favour of petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
This writ petition has arisen out of a civil suit brought by, the respondent, Habib Bank Limited, Zonal Office, Lahore, against the petitioner, Fazlur Rehman for his eviction from certain premises. After framing of the issues the petitioner was given several opportunities to produce evidence but he did not do so. His case was, therefore, closed and the case fixed for arguments. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller regarding the closure of his case, the petitioner has filed this constitutional petition.
2. As indicated above, application for ejectment of the petitioner is still pending decision. It is at the stage of arguments. If the application is decided against the petitioner he will be able to challenge the order of eviction before the appellate tribunal and, while so doing, he will be at liberty to assail the order relating to the closure of evidence also. In case, the application is dismissed by the learned Rent Controller the petitioner will have no worry. In view of the availability of the remedy of appeal to the petitioner in the event of his failure in the ejectment petition, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court.
3. Accordingly, this writ petition is not entertained and is dismissed in limine with the aforesaid observations. M.BA./F‑20/L Petition dismissed.