1988 PLP 2095 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and another — Petitioners Versus RENT CONTROLLER, SIALKOT and others — Respondents.
| Citation | 1988 PLP 2095 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and another — Petitioners Versus RENT CONTROLLER, SIALKOT and others — Respondents. |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 2095 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 2095 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 2095 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and another — Petitioners Versus RENT CONTROLLER, SIALKOT and others — Respondents.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ---Arts.185(3) & 199--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13--Ejectment proceedings--Tenant's writ petition dismissed in default--Contention that case was listed before High Court in category of motion cases while petitioners and their counsel were under the impression that writ petition having earlier been admitted to regular hearing it was to be listed in category of regular cases--Order of admission of writ petition when read carefully by counsel for petitioner on asking of Court revealing that order relied upon by him actually was neither an admission of writ petition nor was it intended to be so and in no case it could be misunderstood as an order of admission--The very basis of contention of petitioner becoming non-existent, leave to appeal refused.
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th May, 1988.
- ‑‑‑Arts.185(3) Ps 199‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑Tenant's writ petition dismissed in default‑‑Contention that case was listed before High Court in category of motion cases while petitioners and their counsel were under the impression that writ petition having earlier been admitted to regular hearing it was to be listed in category of regular cases‑‑Order of admission of writ petition when read carefully by counsel for petitioner on asking of Court revealing that order relied upon by him actually was neither an admission of writ petition nor was it intended to be so and in no case it could be misunderstood as an order of admission‑‑The very basis of contention of petitioner becoming non‑existent, leave to appeal refused.
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15-2-1984 in W.P. No.3288 of 1983).
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Arts.185(3) Ps 199‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑Tenant's writ petition dismissed in default‑‑Contention that case was listed before High Court in category of motion cases while petitioners and their counsel were under the impression that writ petition having earlier been admitted to regular hearing it was to be listed in category of regular cases‑‑Order of admission of writ petition when read carefully by counsel for petitioner on asking of Court revealing that order relied upon by him actually was neither an admission of writ petition nor was it intended to be so and in no case it could be misunderstood as an order of admission‑‑The very basis of contention of petitioner becoming non‑existent, leave to appeal refused. Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th May, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by tenant in an ejectment matter against the rejection of his application for restoration of his writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court in default.
2. Learned counsel has contended that the case was listed before the High Court in the category of Motion Cases while the petitioners and their learned counsel were under the impression that the writ petition having earlier been admitted to regular hearing, it was to be listed in the category of regular cases. On our asking, he read the so‑called order of admission of the writ petition. When seen carefully, it was discovered by the learned counsel that the order relied upon by him actually was neither an admission of the writ petition nor was it intended to be so and in no case it could be misunderstood as an order of admission. The very basis of contention of the learned counsel is non‑existent, leave to appeal is; therefore, refused. M.Y.H./M‑557/S Leave to appeal refused.