1989SCMR566 (PLP)
ZAHOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR566 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ZAHOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR566 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR566 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR566 (PLP) (ZAHOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 11‑4‑88 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P.4121/87). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Rent Controller's order of ejectment set aside by Appellate Court‑‑Constitutional petition of landlord against Appellate Court's order dismissed by High Court‑‑Finding of Appellate Court that plea of personal need was not established being based on appreciation of evidence. High Court, had validly refused to interfere with it which did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Rent Controller's order of ejectment set aside by Appellate Court‑‑Constitutional petition of landlord against Appellate Court's order dismissed by High Court‑‑Finding of Appellate Court that plea of personal need was not established being based on appreciation of evidence. High Court, had validly refused to interfere with it which did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances. Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th September, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner sought the ejectment of respondent No.1 from a shop mainly on the plea of personal need. The Rent Controller accepted the application of the petitioner and made an order of ejectment. However, on appeal the Additional District Judge, Sialkot set aside the order of ejectment. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court but his petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the plea of personal need was not established was based on appreciation of evidence. The High Court therefore very properly refused to interfere with his finding which did not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed. A.A./Z‑47/S Leave to appeal refused.