1996 PLP R1789 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD, BAKHSH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP R1789 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD, BAKHSH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP R1789 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP R1789 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP R1789 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD, BAKHSH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Consent order passed after arguments by High Court, whereupon second appeal against order of ejectment was dismissed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Perusal of record showed that High Court had passed consent order after arguments were heard at length‑‑‑Facts clearly showed that High Court was not inclined to admit petitioner's second appeal, whereupon counsel for petitioner sought time to vacate shop in question, on or before specified period‑‑‑Petitioner's plea that consent of counsel was without his instructions, cannot be accepted on the ground that after lengthy arguments counsel of petitioner found that his second appeal was going to be dismissed, he acted in good faith by obtaining more than six months for the petitioner‑‑‑Such bona fides on the part of counsel; who appeared for petitioner could not be said as not binding on him‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
- M. Maqbul Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th December, 1994.
- ----S. 13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Consent order passed after arguments by High Court, whereupon second appeal against order of ejectment was dismissed---Validity---Perusal of record showed that High Court had passed consent order after arguments were heard at length---Facts clearly showed that High Court was not inclined to admit petitioner's second appeal, whereupon counsel for petitioner sought time to vacate shop in question, on or before specified period---Petitioner's plea that consent of counsel was without his instructions, cannot be accepted on the ground that after lengthy arguments counsel of petitioner found that his second appeal was going to be dismissed, he acted in good faith by obtaining more than six months for the petitioner---Such bona fides on the part of counsel; who appeared for petitioner could not be said as not binding on him---Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
- M. Maqbul Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- "Appeal was argued at length by Qazi Umar Draz, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant. At the end, second appeal was not pressed and the appellant agreed for time till 31-12-1994 to vacate the shop in question and surrender its possession to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents consented to for allowing the agreed time to the appellant for vacating the shop.
- 2. From the abovequoted portion of the order, it seems that it was a consent order passed after arguments were heard at length. It is apparent that the learned Judge in Chambers was not inclined to admit the above S.A.O. Thereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, sought time to vacate the shop on or before 31-12-1994. The contention of the petitioner that the above consent was given without his instructions, cannot be accepted. As stated above, when the aforesaid S.A.O. came up for hearing, it was argued at length. It appears that when the learned counsel for the petitioner found that his above S.A.O. was going to be dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers, he acted in good faith, by obtaining more than six months for the petitioner. The above bona fide act on the part of the Advocate, who appeared for the petitioner, cannot be said as not binding on him. Leave is refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 10‑5‑1994 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in S.A.O.~No.24 of 1993).
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 10-5-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in S.A.O. No.24 of 1993 filed by the petitioner against the order of ejectment dated 6-2-1993 of the learned District Judge, in Civil Appeal No.103/14 of 1992, disposing ~of the same in the following terms:-- "Appeal was argued at length by Qazi Umar Draz, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant. At the end, second appeal was not pressed and the appellant agreed for time till 31-12-1994 to vacate the shop in question and surrender its possession to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents consented to for allowing the agreed time to the appellant for vacating the shop. Upon the above agreed premises, second appeal is dismissed; appellant is allowed to vacate the shop in question on or before 31-12-1994, subject to payment of agreed monthly rent in advance before 15th of each calendar month. Default in payment of rent for two consecutive months shall authorise the respondents to execute the eviction order before the expiry of the agreed time. "
2. From the abovequoted portion of the order, it seems that it was a consent order passed after arguments were heard at length. It is apparent that the learned Judge in Chambers was not inclined to admit the above S.A.O. Thereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, sought time to vacate the shop on or before 31-12-1994. The contention of the petitioner that the above consent was given without his instructions, cannot be accepted. As stated above, when the aforesaid S.A.O. came up for hearing, it was argued at length. It appears that when the learned counsel for the petitioner found that his above S.A.O. was going to be dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers, he acted in good faith, by obtaining more than six months for the petitioner. The above bona fide act on the part of the Advocate, who appeared for the petitioner, cannot be said as not binding on him. Leave is refused. A. A. /M-3045/S Leave refused