1983 PLP 2488 (CLC)
MAJOR (RETD.) AZIM ULLAH ANSARI-Petitioner Versus LT.-COL. (RETD.) M. A. MANNON AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 2488 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khurshid Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MAJOR (RETD.) AZIM ULLAH ANSARI-Petitioner Versus LT.-COL. (RETD.) M. A. MANNON AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 2488 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 2488 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khurshid Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 2488 (CLC) (MAJOR (RETD.) AZIM ULLAH ANSARI-Petitioner Versus LT.-COL. (RETD.) M. A. MANNON AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar 1qbal Khan for Petitioner:
- Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 24-Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 199-Appeal partly heard by District Judge-Transfer of-Tenant contending District Judge having partly heard matter has no power to transfer appeal to Additional District Judge - Landlord not contesting writ petition - District Judge's order of transfer set aside - Held, acceptance of writ petition not to be treated as determination of question involved. Muhammad Sabir v. Additional District Judge 11, Rawalpindi and others P L D 1979 Lab. 353 ref.
Judgment & Decree
S. 24-Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 199-Appeal partly heard by District Judge-Transfer of-Tenant contending District Judge having partly heard matter has no power to transfer appeal to Additional District Judge - Landlord not contesting writ petition - District Judge's order of transfer set aside - Held, acceptance of writ petition not to be treated as determination of question involved. Muhammad Sabir v. Additional District Judge 11, Rawalpindi and others P L D 1979 Lab. 353 ref. Zafar 1qbal Khan for Petitioner: Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Respondents. This writ petition had been admitted to consider the question whether the learned District Judge, Lahore after admitting the appeal and having partly heard the matter could transfer the case to the file of the learned Additional District Judge. The contention of the petitioner was that the learned District Judge did not have any such powers under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. and had placed reliance on some observations in the case reported as Muhammad Sabir v. Additional District Judge 11, Rawalpindi and others (P L D 1979 Lab. 353). 2. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted that the sole purpose of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings on one pretext or the other and the objection raised was purely technical and in case this writ petition is allowed to be argued in its own turn the purpose of the petitioner who is a tenant in the premises will be fulfilled. The learned counsel for the respondent as such decided not to contest this writ petition and had no objection in case the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 17th November, 1979 be set aside and' the case be remitted to the learned District Judge for re-bearing. In view of the fact that the respondent does not want to contest this writ petition, I think it would be in the interest of justice that the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 17th November, 1979 be set aside and the c learned District Judge be directed to bear the appeal instead of consuming further time in debating the question involved in the writ petition. The writ petition in the circumstances of the case is accepted and the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 17th November, 1979 is hereby set aside and the case remitted to the learned District Judge, Lahore to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. The acceptance of this writ petition shall not be treated as the determination of the question involved. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on Ilth February, 1980. The learned District Judge shall fix the case for final hearing according to his convenience but try to dispose the appeal expeditiously. As the respondent has not contested the writ petition there will be no order as to costs. K. M. A. Petition accepted.