1986 PLP 1688 (MLD)
SHAMSHUDDIN‑‑Appellant Versus HUSSAIN KHAN Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1688 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAMSHUDDIN‑‑Appellant Versus HUSSAIN KHAN Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1688 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1688 (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: 1986 PLP 1688 (MLD) (SHAMSHUDDIN‑‑Appellant Versus HUSSAIN KHAN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Rizvi for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Ashiq Ali Anwar Rana for Appellant. S.M. Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th April 1986. The case is fixed today for hearing of the stay application but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal has also been taken up for regular hearing and the learned counsel heard.. R and P also been perused. The rent case filed by the respondent /landlord was contested by the appellant /tenant, who filed a written statement. On 5‑12‑1985 the case was adjourned to 10‑12‑1985 to allow the appellant to cross- examine the respondent. On 10‑12‑1985, the Presiding Officer was on leave and according to the appellant the Bench clerk of the Rent Controller notified the date as 4‑1‑1986 but on 4‑1‑1986 it was found that the matter had already been decided ex parte on 24‑12‑1985 and ejectment of the appellant ordered. On 10‑12‑1985 the Presiding Officer was on leave. R and P show that the matter was adjourned to 22‑12‑1985 for final arguments. The case was then decided against the appellant by order, dated 24‑12‑1985. Mr. S.M. Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent, states that the respondent is interested in a decision on merits with full opportunity to be granted to the appellant to defend the case and for this reason he does not oppose the present appeal. In my view also, in the facts and circumstances of this case, as an incorrect date had been noted on behalf of the appellant when the case was adjourned on' 10‑12‑1985 on account of the Presiding Officer being on leave, the order of ejectment is to be set aside to enable the ppellant to have a full and proper opportunity to defend the ejectment case filed against him. First Rent Appeal No.88 of 1986 is allowed and the impugned order, dated 24‑12‑1985 of the Rent Controller is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh decision in accordance witch law. As the main appeal has been decided and the ejectment order ISl IS set aside, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.310 of 1986 for stay hash become infructuous and is dismissed as such. H.B.T. Appeal allowed.,