1998 PLP 1987 (CLC)
MEHMOOD AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1987 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Kamal Mansur Alam and Zafar Hadi Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MEHMOOD AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1987 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1987 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Kamal Mansur Alam and Zafar Hadi Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1987 (CLC) (MEHMOOD AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Raghib Baqi for Petitioner.
- Mian Mushtaq Ahmad for Respondent No.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Interlocutory order‑‑ Constitutional petition against such order‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Trial Court passed interim order on an interlocutory application filed by the tenant‑‑‑No appeal having been provided against interim order under S.21, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, High Court dismissed the petition assailing such order with observations that if Constitutional petition was to be entertained at such stage the very purpose of S.21 of the Ordinance would be defeated‑‑‑Tenant would have opportunity to file appeal if the final order went against him and then he could raise this ground too. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 4(2)‑‑‑Qualification of Rent Controller‑‑‑Stage of raising such objection‑‑ Tenant raised objection regarding qualification of Rent Controller in appellate forum‑‑‑Tenant could raise such objection before Rent Controller at any stage during the proceedings and not before appellate forum. Naraindas C. Motiani, A.A.‑G..
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 4(2)‑‑‑Qualification of Rent Controller‑‑‑Stage of raising such objection‑‑ Tenant raised objection regarding qualification of Rent Controller in appellate forum‑‑‑Tenant could raise such objection before Rent Controller at any stage during the proceedings and not before appellate forum. Muhammad Raghib Baqi for Petitioner. Mian Mushtaq Ahmad for Respondent No. Naraindas C. Motiani, A.A.‑G.. This Constitution petition is directed against an order, dated 3‑I1‑1996 passed by the Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (South), whereby he dismissed petitioner's application for permission to cross‑examine the respondent No. I's witness. It appears that the affidavit‑in‑evidence of respondents' witness was filed on 28‑9‑1992 and since then the cross-examination of the witness continued to be put off till 22‑1‑1996 when the Controller closed the cross‑examination. Prior to this, on an earlier occasion too the cross‑examination of the same witness had been closed but at that time it was reopened with the consent of the respondent No. I's counsel. Indisputably the impugned order is in the nature of an interim order passed on an interlocutory application filed on behalf of the petitioner, whereas under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance appeal is provided only from order which is not an interim order. Obviously, it is in view of the bar contained in section 21 of the Ordinance that the petitioner did not file appeal against the impugned order but has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In a number of cases it has been held that no Constitution petition is maintainable against an interim order of the Rent Controller, the reason being that if Constitution petitions were to be entertained the very purpose of section 21 of the Ordinance would be defeated. The petitioner will have opportunity to file appeal if the final order goes against him and then he can raise this ground too. In the present case apart from challenging the order of the Controller refusing to allow the cross‑examination of the respondent No. I's witness, the rent proceedings before the Rent Controller are also attacked on the ground that the Rent Controller does not possess the requisite qualification of three years experience as a Civil Judge or First Class Magistrate as provided under section 4(2) of the Ordinance and, therefore, cannot function as a Rent Controller. However, admittedly no such objection was ever taken by the petitioner before the Rent Controller at any stage, which he should have done before raising it in this petition. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition which we dismiss in limine.
2. In view of the above order, this application has become infructuous and is dismissed. C.M.A./M‑300/K Petition dismissed