1975 PLP 293 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER -
| Citation | 1975 PLP 293 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER - |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1989) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 293 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1989) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 293 (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: 1975 PLP 293 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER -). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Butter, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing 7th October 1974.
- ‑‑ S. 13‑Ejectment stayed subject to deposit of up‑to‑date rent by tenant‑No rent deposited and notice to show cause issued Advocate appearing on tenant's behalf at first stating that he had no instructions but later asking for time to ascertain correct position‑Counsel, held, had plenty of time to obtain instructions from petitioner (tenant) and non‑compliance of Court's order stood unchallenged‑Stay order vacated.
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Butter, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate on Record, has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. At first he said that he had no instructions in the matter. Later, however, he a4'k^d for time to ascertain the correct position.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of vacation of stay order). -- S. 13-Ejectment stayed subject to deposit of up-to-date rent by tenant-No rent deposited and notice to show cause issued Advocate appearing on tenant's behalf at first stating that he had no instructions but later asking for time to ascertain correct position-Counsel, held, had plenty of time to obtain instructions from petitioner (tenant) and non-compliance of Court's order stood unchallenged-Stay order vacated.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.
1. Date of hearing 7th October 1974. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑By an order dated the 16th of November, 1972, this Court granted .leave to appeal in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 264 of 1972, and also passed a stay order in favour of the petitioner subject to deposit by him of upto date rent with the Rents Controller. The present application is by respondent Ghulam Sabir, the transferee of the property in dispute. He has complained that the petitioner has failed to comply with the directions of the Court regarding deposit of up‑to‑date rent, and the aforesaid order should, therefore, be rescinded. On the 11th of June, 1974, a notice of this application was directed to be issued to the petitioner. Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate on Record, has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. At first he said that he had no instructions in the matter. Later, however, he a4'k^d for time to ascertain the correct position. As noticed already a notice was directed to be issued to him in June 1974, and he had, therefore, plenty of time to obtain instructions from the petitioner. The respondent's statement about, non‑compliance with this Court's order remains unchallenged. We have no other alternative but to accept the respondent's application and vacate the order of stay passed by this Court on the 16th of November, 1972. The application is accordingly allowed but without any order as to costs. Petition allowed.