1984 PLP 1251 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1251 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1251 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1251 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1251 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ahmad Hasan for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Shafi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15(7)--Revision--Order challenged in revision not "case decided"- Even otherwise revision, held, not competent against orders passed in proceedings under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959--Revision dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Revision No. 458 of 1984, decided on 14th October, 1984.
S. 115--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15(7)--Revision--Order challenged in revision not "case decided"- Even otherwise revision, held, not competent against orders passed in proceedings under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959--Revision dismissed. Mian Ahmad Hasan for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Shafi for Respondents. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 25-7-1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, on an application filed in a pending appeal filed, against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. By moving the application the decision of the appeal was sought to be stayed pending the adjudication of the suit filed by the petitioner. This request was refused, vide impugned order. This order even otherwise does not amount to case decided. Moreover, against orders passed in the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance revision is not competent. Reference may be made to P L D 1981 S C 112 and 1984 C L C 2255. The revision being incompetent, is dismissed in limine. In view of the dismissal of the revision petition, C.M. has become infructuous. M.Y.H. Revision dismissed.