1988 PLP 1243(1) (SCMR)
Ch. GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1243(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1243(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1243(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1243(1) (SCMR) (Ch. GHULAM MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammd Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M.Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 10‑12‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.3709 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Tenant conceded that he had already been evicted with an assertion that litigation between respondent and another party was still pending on question of title and decision therein might be of some benefit to him‑‑Leave to appeal refused with observation that leave refusing order would not prejudice any party in proceedings pending on question of title.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition arises out of an order of eviction passed against the petitioner/ tenant under the Rent Restriction Law. The High Court having dismissed the petitioner's Constitutional Petition, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel has frankly stated that the petitioner has already been evicted, with of course, an assertion that the question of title is still pending between the respondent No.3 and another party in a Civil Court, the decision wherein might ultimately be of some benefit to the petitioner.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we dismiss this petition with the remarks that the refusal to grant leave to appeal in this case shall not, in any way, prejudice the case of any party in the proceedings, which, as stated by the learned counsel, are still pending) before the Civil Court. M.Y.H./G‑93/S Petition dismissed.