1987 PLP 2006 (SCMR)
TANVEER JAMSHED and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Raja GHULAM HAIDER‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2006 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | TANVEER JAMSHED and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Raja GHULAM HAIDER‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2006 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2006 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2006 (SCMR) (TANVEER JAMSHED and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Raja GHULAM HAIDER‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and R.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 12(2)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 22‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider questions: (a) whether the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. was competent in the Trial Court inasmuch as he was not a party to the rent proceedings; (b) was the said application under section 12(2), C.P.C. within time and what Article of Limitation Act was applicable to the case in view of allegations of fraud having been made in the said application; (c) what was the effect of the pendency of suit; and (d) whether the provision of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (Section 22) debarred third parties from filing objections in the execution proceedings and whether such third person could obstruct the execution proceedings on the ground that he was not claiming possession through the Judgment‑Debtor.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑Several legal points raised in this petition, inter alia, the following deserve consideration: (a) Was the application under section 12(2) C.P.C. competent by the petitioner No.1, in the trial Court inasmuch as he was not a party to the rent proceedings? (b) Was the said application under section 12(2), C.P.C. within time and that what Article of Limitation Act was applicable to the case in view of allegations of fraud having been made in the said application. (c) What was the effect of the pendency of Suit No.4141, of 1980 (New No. 206 of 1985) in the Court of VII. (East) Civil Judge Karachi. (d) Whether the provision of Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (Section 22) debarred third parties from filing objections in the execution in proceedings and whether could such third person obstruct the execution proceedings on the ground that he was not claiming possession through the Judgment Debtor? Leave is granted and the petition is allowed. Security Rs.2,
000. Appeal will be heard on the present record. It is, however, open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. M.A.K./T‑20/K ‑‑‑‑‑ Leave granted.