1981 PLP 212 (CLC)
QUTUBUDDIN AHMLD KHAN‑Appellant Versus Mst. ZOHRA MUSARAT AMIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 212 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | QUTUBUDDIN AHMLD KHAN‑Appellant Versus Mst. ZOHRA MUSARAT AMIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 212 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 212 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 212 (CLC) (QUTUBUDDIN AHMLD KHAN‑Appellant Versus Mst. ZOHRA MUSARAT AMIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zamirul Haq for Appellant.
- A. G. Mangl and Hassan Akbar, Asstt. A.‑G. (Sind) for Respondents.
- Dates of hearing : 9th, and 13th April 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑ S. 13 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 10.‑Jurisdic tion‑Jurisdiction conferred on Rent Controller only when relation ship of landlord and tenant exists between parties‑Application of intervenor under r. 10 of O. 1, C. P. C. to be treated as party, held rightly rejected ‑ Intervenor having physical possession of demised property through respondent‑company/tenant, ejectment of respondent company automatically includes ejectment of intervenor. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VT of 1959)‑ S. 15 and Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O. 1, r. 10‑Appeal Rent Controller a persona designata‑Civil Procedure Code not applicable to proceedings before him‑Appeal against order of Rent Controller rejecting intervenor's application under O. 1, r. 10 C. P. C. Not competent‑Question whether intervenor party or not‑A ques tion of fact and findings of two Courts below concurrent‑Interference in second appeal declined.‑[Question of fact‑Second appeal]. (c) Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1176)‑ S. 3‑Contempt of Court‑Disregard of order of High Court staying delivery of possession to landlady‑Breach of prohibitory order issued by Court‑‑Not necessary to actually prove service of order upon party against whom issued‑Fundamental rule in proceedings of criminal and semi‑criminal nature‑Contemner to be shown to have had some definite and authentic information of nature of order alleged to have been violated by him‑Proof sufficient to fix a person with such knowledge, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case Verbal assertion of a rival party not sufficient for purpose. Syed Ahmad Shah v. State and another P L D 1967 S C 42 rel:
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 13 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 10.‑Jurisdic tion‑Jurisdiction conferred on Rent Controller only when relation ship of landlord and tenant exists between parties‑Application of intervenor under r. 10 of O. 1, C. P. C. to be treated as party, held rightly rejected ‑ Intervenor having physical possession of demised property through respondent‑company/tenant, ejectment of respondent company automatically includes ejectment of intervenor. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VT of 1959)‑ S. 15 and Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O. 1, r. 10‑Appeal Rent Controller a persona designata‑Civil Procedure Code not applicable to proceedings before him‑Appeal against order of Rent Controller rejecting intervenor's application under O. 1, r. 10 C. P. C. Not competent‑Question whether intervenor party or not‑A ques tion of fact and findings of two Courts below concurrent‑Interference in second appeal declined.‑[Question of fact‑Second appeal]. (c) Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1176)‑ S. 3‑Contempt of Court‑Disregard of order of High Court staying delivery of possession to landlady‑Breach of prohibitory order issued by Court‑‑Not necessary to actually prove service of order upon party against whom issued‑Fundamental rule in proceedings of criminal and semi‑criminal nature‑Contemner to be shown to have had some definite and authentic information of nature of order alleged to have been violated by him‑Proof sufficient to fix a person with such knowledge, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case Verbal assertion of a rival party not sufficient for purpose. Syed Ahmad Shah v. State and another P L D 1967 S C 42 rel: Zamirul Haq for Appellant. A. G. Mangl and Hassan Akbar, Asstt. A.‑G. (Sind) for Respondents. Dates of hearing : 9th, and 13th April 1980.