1990 PLP 1522 (CLC)
Mst. AMTUL KABIR and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SAFIA KHATOON and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1522 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J |
| Parties | Mst. AMTUL KABIR and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SAFIA KHATOON and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1522 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1522 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1522 (CLC) (Mst. AMTUL KABIR and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SAFIA KHATOON and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muzaffarul Haq for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, R.1‑‑‑Review application‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑High Court does not have powers of review under provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, but only the power of appeal under S.21 of the Ordinance‑‑‑Provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in ejectment application under provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance‑‑‑Applicant's plea that certain authorities were not cited by the counsel was hardly a ground for entertaining review application. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 114 & OXLVII, R.1‑‑‑Review application‑‑‑There being no discovery of new matter on evidence which was not within knowledge of applicant or his counsel, and there being no mistake or error on the face of the record, case was not covered either by the provisions of S.114 or OXLVII, R.1, C. P. C.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, R.1‑‑‑Review application‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑High Court does not have powers of review under provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, but only the power of appeal under S.21 of the Ordinance‑‑‑Provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in ejectment application under provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance‑‑‑Applicant's plea that certain authorities were not cited by the counsel was hardly a ground for entertaining review application. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 114 & OXLVII, R.1‑‑‑Review application‑‑‑There being no discovery of new matter on evidence which was not within knowledge of applicant or his counsel, and there being no mistake or error on the face of the record, case was not covered either by the provisions of S.114 or OXLVII, R.1, C. P. C. Muzaffarul Haq for Appellants. There is no jurisdiction to entertain this Revision application because in the first instance, the High Court does not have the powers to review the matter in any manner under the provisions of Sindh Rented Permises Ordinance, 1979. The only power is of appeal under section 21, otherwise rest of the provinces of C.P.C. are not attracted or applied, Moreover the ground of review is that certain authorities were not cited by the Counsel. This is hardly a ground for entertaining a review application as it was a lapse on the part of the appellant's counsel and not on the part of the Court. This case is not covered either by the provisions under S. 114 of C.P.C. or Order 47, as there is no discovery of new matter on evidence which were not within the knowledge of the appellant or the counsel and there is no mistake or error on the face of the record. Accordingly this application is dismissed. A.A./A‑836/K Review application dismissed.