1986 PLP (1) (SCMR)
CAJETAN PINTO — Petitioner Versus Dr. (Mrs.) SHIRIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP (1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | CAJETAN PINTO — Petitioner Versus Dr. (Mrs.) SHIRIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution opt Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution opt Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP (1) (SCMR) (CAJETAN PINTO — Petitioner Versus Dr. (Mrs.) SHIRIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A.I. Qarni, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1985.
- Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A.I. Qarni, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the High Court of Sind, dated 29-11-1984 passed in F.R.A. 910 of 1984).
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Concurrent decisions of Courts below on question of fact--Supreme Court declined to interfere- Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ In an ejectment proceeding substituted by the respondent Dr. Mrs. Shirin against one Qazi Azmat Ali the petitioner applied for impleadment on the ground that he was the tenant of the respondent and that he had been regularly paying rent to her. The application was, however, dismissed on 26‑8‑1984 for the reason that he was not a tenant and had otherwise no locus standi to join the proceedings as a necessary party. On 27‑8‑1984, an ejectment order was passed in the case. The petitioner came to the High Court in appeal against both orders but the appeal was dismissed for the reason that there was no cogent or satisfactory evidence to establish that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the premises in question.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we feel satisfied 'that no case is made out for interference with the concurrent decisions of the Courts below on a question of fact. The petition is dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.