1969 PLP 88 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL DIN AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 88 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL DIN AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 88 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 88 (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: 1969 PLP 88 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL DIN AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 22nd October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 15th April 1968, in S. A. O. No. 111 of 1968).
Art. 58 (3)‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal‑Disposal of petition necessitating perusal of certain documents on record of Court below‑Records in first instance called for.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 22nd October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan in a Second Appeal from an order of a Rent Controller, granting permission to evict the petitioners herein. The main ground on which the order for eviction appears to have been based is that the petitioners were in default, in the payment of rent from 8‑1‑1965 to 10‑5‑1965. The learned counsel however, contends that in coming to this conclusion the Courts below have failed to take into account material evidence which has been furnished in the shape of challans filed on the record of the Rent Controller to show deposit of rent in the State Bank of Pakistan for the relevant period. These challans were not accepted in the case but it is con tended that since these were challans filed in Court to show payments in accordance with the directions of the Court, no further proof of them was necessary. This contention necessitates a reference to the record of the Rent Controller which is not before us now. Let the said records be, therefore, called for in the first instance. This petition is also out of time by one day, but an applica tion for condonation of the delay has been filed. It is, however, argued that if the date shown in the High Court stamp on the certified copy of the judgment is excluded from calculation, then the petition will be in time. We are not expressing any opinion on the question at this stage which will also be considered when this matter is put up for hearing again after the records have been received. Order accordingly.