P L D 1991 Karachi 221 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SAMIUDDIN‑‑Appellant Versus Soot MUHAMMAD Al ‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1991 Karachi 221 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Syed Abdur Relunan and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAMIUDDIN‑‑Appellant Versus Soot MUHAMMAD Al ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Karachi 221 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Karachi 221 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Syed Abdur Relunan and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Karachi 221 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SAMIUDDIN‑‑Appellant Versus Soot MUHAMMAD Al ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant. Muhammad Ali Jan for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1991
Headnotes / Summary
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 21 & 14‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151‑‑‑First Rent Appeal‑‑ Reference of case to Division Bench for resolving conflict of views amongst Judges of High Court‑‑‑Questions referred were whether person in possession of a portion of building, could be deemed to be in possession of a building in the same locality; and whether person retired from service and attaining age of sixty years much before purchase of building could take benefit of S.14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑When hearing came up for reference appellant having sold away property remained absent and thus no effective relief could be given to him in Rent Appeal by the Single Judge who would hear the same‑‑ Points referred to Division Bench would thus become only of an academic interest. (b) Administration of justice‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Court has to interpret law with reference to facts stated and reliefs prayed in the pleadings‑‑‑Court was not expected to give decision on metaphysical or hypothetical questions‑‑‑Appellant's counsel having withdrawn Power‑of Attorney, no other counsel had been engaged in his place‑‑‑No legal/proper assistance being available to Court to decide the questions referred to it, Court returned the reference without being answered.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ABDUR REHMAN, J.‑‑‑In this F.R.A. reference was made by the then Honourable Chief Justice on 4‑11‑1987 whereby the following two points were referred to this Division Bench for resolving the conflict of views amongst the Judges of this Court:‑‑ (1) That'the appellant is in possession of a portion of the building, therefore he is in possession of a building in the same locality. (2)That the appellant retired from service and attained the age of 60 years much before the purchase of the building. The view of learned Judge in the case of Dominic Pereira v. Mrs. Hameeda Begum (1983 CLC 317) was that in such a situation the widow cannot press into service the provisions of section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance while the view of the learned Judge in the case of Kamal Afreen v. Mansoor Muhammad Qureshi (PLD 1983 Kar. 598) was to the contrary. Today when the reference came up fur hearing before us there is no appearance for the appellant. Mr.Mohammad Ali Jan has appeared for the respondent. He has submitted an application under section 151, C.P.C. alongwith photostat copy of the sale‑deed and has brought it to the notice of the Court that the respondent has sold out the entire property where the premises in question is situated to one Syed Abdul Ghani. Hence the appellant has no further interest in the property. Since the appellant has sold away the property, no effective relief can be given to him in the F.RA. by the learned Single Judge who will hear the same. The point referred to this Division Bench would therefore become only of an academic interest. It is settled law that the Court has to interpret the law with reference to the facts stated and the reliefs prayed in the pleadings. The Court is not expected to give decision on metaphysical on or hypothetical questions. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of a Division Bench of A Lahore High Court in the case of Pakistan Steel Re‑Rolling Mills Association v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1964 (W.P) Lah. 138), where it has been held as follows:‑‑‑ "In writ jurisdiction, reliefs claimed have to be construed and granted in terms of the prayers made in the petition (See Pakistan v.Ali Afzal) and the Courts are not called upon merely to decide metaphysical questions of law without reference to the relief which is sought in the petition:" Apart from that the appellant's counsel has withdrawn the power on the last date of hearing and no other advocate has been engaged in his place. Hence we feel that we will not be able to get proper legal assistance to enable us to IR decide the questions referred to us. Hence we return the reference without being answered. This may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary directions. A.A./M‑1374/K Reference returned