P L D 1980 Lahore 32 (PLP)
Before Muhammad Ilyas, J Versus Mst. DILSHAD BEGUM-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1980 Lahore 32 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | -- S. 15(3)-Additional evidence--District Judge himself without an application from any party, making further enquiry into matter in terms of' S. 15(3)-Order of District Judge, held, nit open to any valid exception.-Evidence. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | Before Muhammad Ilyas, J Versus Mst. DILSHAD BEGUM-Respondent |
| Primary Law | a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1980 Lahore 32 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1980 Lahore 32 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- S. 15(3)-Additional evidence--District Judge himself without an application from any party, making further enquiry into matter in terms of' S. 15(3)-Order of District Judge, held, nit open to any valid exception.-Evidence. bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1980 Lahore 32 (PLP) (Before Muhammad Ilyas, J Versus Mst. DILSHAD BEGUM-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sarwar A it-an for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 15(3)-Additional evidence--District Judge himself without an application from any party, making further enquiry into matter in terms of' S. 15(3)-Order of District Judge, held, nit open to any valid exception.-[Evidence].
Judgment & Decree
Tills civil revision is directed against an order of an Additional District Judge who while acting as an appellate authority, recorded the statement of the husband of the respondent-landlady, Mst. Dilshad Begum as additional .evidence in an appeal filed against her by the petitioner, Muhammad Ashiq. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner to call in question an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of personal need of the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statement of the husband of the respondent was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge suo motu and not on an application of the respondent. The argument proceeds that her husband was neither a part to the ejectment proceedings nor he was an attorney of the respondent and, therefore, he had no locus standi to make an application. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of -the application made by the respondent's husband which shows that he had filed the application in obedience to the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Even if there was no such order, it was not necessary that there should be an application by a party to enable the learned Appellate Authority to record additional evidence. According to subsection (3) of section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the appellate authority is required to "decide the appeal after sending for the record of the case from the Controller, and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further enquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller". It seems that in the present case the learned Additional District Judge had himself considered it necessary to make further enquiry in terms of the provisions of subsection (3) of section 15 which he could do even if there ,q was no application by any of the parties to the appeal requisition him to hold such inquiry. After recording the statement of the husband of the respondent, the learned Additional District Judge permitted the petitioner to produce such documents and other evidence in rebuttal thereof as he thought fit. Thus, he took care of the interest of the petitioner also while making further inquiry in the case. In this view of the matter, the order impugned herein is not open to any valid exception..
3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed 1980 FAZAL MUHAMMAD KHAN V. SARDAR KHAN LAHORE 33 (Muhammad Afzal Lone, J)