1985 PLP 1497 (SCMR)
Mst. KHURSHIDA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus AYUB BAIG and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1497 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. KHURSHIDA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus AYUB BAIG and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1497 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1497 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1497 (SCMR) (Mst. KHURSHIDA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus AYUB BAIG and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ahmad Hassan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th November, 1984.
- M. Ahmad Hassan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16-7-1984, passed in Writ Petition No. 3155 of 1984) .
Arts. 185(3) h 199--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15--Constitutional petition--Petitioners seeking High Court to reappraise evidence and reverse judgment of Rent Controller District Judge--Writ petition, held, was not competent--Leave to appeal refused. Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others P L D 1981 S C 522 rel.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 16‑7‑1984, dismissing their writ petition in a rent matter.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned order we notice that in their Constitutional petition, the petitioners only required the High Court to reappraise the evidence and reverse the judgment of the Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge We are of the view that the Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners was not competent in view of the observation by this Court in Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others P L D 1981 S C
522. Even otherwise the petitioners have no case.
3. The petition is consequently dismissed with costs. M.I. Petition dismissed.