1981 PLP 1477 (CLC)
SHAFQAT HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus ASIF NAVEED ETC. ‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1477 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khurshid Ahmad, J |
| Parties | SHAFQAT HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus ASIF NAVEED ETC. ‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rest Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1477 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rest Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1477 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khurshid Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1477 (CLC) (SHAFQAT HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus ASIF NAVEED ETC. ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raza Hussain Shamsi for Appellants.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing :10th May, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑‑‑ S. 13 (2)‑Opportunity to produce evidence‑‑Appellant's (tenant's) witnesses served for day of hearing, Rent Controller calling case on that date at 8‑15 a. m., 9‑35 a. m. and closing appellant's evidence at 9‑45 a. m.‑Case called out several times but neither their counsel nor any person on behalf of respondents appearing for whole day‑Held: Appellant not afforded adequate opportunity to produce his evidence‑Case remanded for decision afresh after giving adequate opportunity to appellant tenant to produce his evidence.‑[Remand of case].
Judgment & Decree
ASIF NAVEED ETC. ‑Respondents Second Appeal from Original Order No. 232 of 1971, heard on 10th May, 1980. ‑‑‑‑‑‑ S. 13 (2)‑Opportunity to produce evidence‑‑Appellant's (tenant's) witnesses served for day of hearing, Rent Controller calling case on that date at 8‑15 a. m., 9‑35 a. m. and closing appellant's evidence at 9‑45 a. m.‑Case called out several times but neither their counsel nor any person on behalf of respondents appearing for whole day‑Held: Appellant not afforded adequate opportunity to produce his evidence‑Case remanded for decision afresh after giving adequate opportunity to appellant tenant to produce his evidence.‑[Remand of case]. Raza Hussain Shamsi for Appellants. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing :10th May, 1980.