1989 PLP 237 (SCMR)
Haji ABDUL RASHID — Petitioner Versus Ch. FATEH MUHAMMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 237 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji ABDUL RASHID — Petitioner Versus Ch. FATEH MUHAMMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 237 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 237 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 237 (SCMR) (Haji ABDUL RASHID — Petitioner Versus Ch. FATEH MUHAMMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naraindas C. Motiani, Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate-on- Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th September, 1988.
- Naraindas C. Motiani, Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the Judgment/Order of High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 8-8-1988 passed in CMAs in FRA No. 612 of 1987).
S. 15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)--Ejectment--Execution application filed by landlord for ejecting tenant decided by a consent order passed by High Court who ordered eviction of tenant by a stipulated period--Tenant thereafter filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and challenged compromise order on ground that his counsel who entered into compromise had no authority to do so--Tenant prayed for a stay which was refused by High Court--Held. tenant after enjoying benefit of compromise order thought it fit to challenge it only when he was obliged to vacate premises--Tenant by his own conduct disentitled himself to interim relief and was rightly denied stay order.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 5th September, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Petitioner, a tenant under orders of eviction, seeks leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind dated 8‑8‑1988 whereby while entertaining his Application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in a rent case for further adjudication, stay of the A execution proceedings was refused observing as follows:‑‑ "This is an application for stay of the execution of the eviction order. The or appeal was disposed of by consent order dated 9‑6‑1987 whereby the appellant was allowed time upto 15‑6‑1988 to vacate the premises. Now he seeks stay of that order. I am not inclined to stay the execution of order because the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. was filed after enjoying the time allowed by the consent order. I, therefore, dismiss this application." Against this Order the Petitioner seeks leave to appeal. It appears from the record that a compromise Order was passed by the High Court on 9‑8‑1987 in the following terms:‑‑ "By consent this appeal is disposed of as follows:‑‑ The appellant shall vacate the premises by 15th June, 1988 and, if he fails to vacate the premises by the said date, he will be liable to be evicted without notice of execution application. The appellant shall continue to comply with the order of the Controller and, if he fails to comply with the order notwithstanding time allowed, he will be liable to be evicted forthwith. This order also disposes of application for interim relief." When, after the stipulated period, Execution Application was filed for evicting of the Petitioner from the premises, he filed an Application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. challenging the compromise order of eviction dated 9‑8‑1987 on the sole ground that the counsel who entered into compromise was not authorised by him to do so. Apart from the fact that the allegation being restricted to the counsel and not to the party or to the proceedings, the learned .fudge in the High Court has rightly observed that he was not satisfied by the delay which showed that after enjoying the benefits under the Order, the Petitioner thought fit to challenge it only when he was obliged to vacate the premises. The Petitioner had by his own conduct disentitled himself to the interim relief and was rightly so denied. No ground is made out. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. M.Y.H./A‑351/S Petition dismissed.