P L D 2000 Peshawar 47 (PLP)
GHULAM ZAKRIA QURESHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Khawaja GHULAM MURTAZA LONE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2000 Peshawar 47 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Malik Hamid Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM ZAKRIA QURESHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Khawaja GHULAM MURTAZA LONE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Peshawar 47 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2000 Peshawar 47 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Malik Hamid Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Peshawar 47 (PLP) (GHULAM ZAKRIA QURESHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Khawaja GHULAM MURTAZA LONE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑‑Interlocutory order‑‑ Appeal/revision against interlocutory order‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Interlocutory order of Rent Controller could not be challenged in appeal as same was specially barred under S.15, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. could also not be invoked because said provision was not applicable to proceedings before Rent Controller. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S., 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 109‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Remedy of appeal being available to petitioner under S.15, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised by High Court in favour of petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.‑‑Ghulam Zikria Qureshi, the petitioner before us is a respondent/tenant in proceedings of ejectment before the learned Rent Controller filed by Khawaja Ghulam Murtaza Lone, as the landlord. Almost at the end of such proceedings, the petitioner/tenant came up with the prayer that a Local Commissioner be appointed to ascertain the serial number of his shop because the number of his shop was 394 whereas the ejectment proceedings had been initiated for Shop No.392.
2. Such application was disallowed by the learned Rent Controller and also by the learned Additional District Judge, holding that no interlocutory order of a Rent Controller could be challenged in appeal and that such orders were also not challengeable through a revision under section 115, C.P.C. which was never applicable to proceedings under Rent. Restriction Ordinance.
3. It is a settled principle of law that no interlocutory order of a Rent Controller can be challenged in appeal which is specifically barred under section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Similarly the A revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. can also be not invoked because such provisions of the C.P.C. are not applicable to the proceedings before a Rent Controller.
4. So far as the merits regarding the appointment or otherwise of the Local Commissioner are concerned, we decline to enter into the details thereof because the petitioner can challenge the same in regular appeal against the final order of the Rent Controller, if and when passed. As the remedy to the petitioner is still available, we refuse to exercise our Constitutional. jurisdiction. The writ petition alongwith C.M. No.2598 of 1999 is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./47/P Petition dismissed