1991 PLP 1469 (CLC)
STATE LIFE INSURANCE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1469 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | STATE LIFE INSURANCE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1469 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1469 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1469 (CLC) (STATE LIFE INSURANCE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.l to 3.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Appellate Authority without first deciding question as to admission of appeal filed before it, proceeded to accept it after hearing preliminary arguments of appellants without service of any notice on opposite party under misconception that an admitted appeal was being heard‑‑‑Petitioner/opposing party having not been granted any opportunity of being heard, order of Appellate Authority was declared to be illegal by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos.l to
3. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1991. The petitioner claims to be the landlord of property bearing No.S‑19‑R 68, commonly known as Gian Mansion, situate at Shahra‑e‑Quaid‑e‑Azam, Lahore, which is in occupation of respondents No.2 and 3 on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the written statement filed by them respondents Nos.2 and 3 denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller vide his order dated 29‑3‑1983 accepted this petition and directed the eviction of the respondents from the property in dispute. Aggrieved by this order, respondents 2 and 3 filed an appeal which was entrusted to an Additional District Judge who proceeded to accept the same on 23‑6‑1983. This judgment of the Additional District Judge has been assailed by the petitioner by filing this constitutional petition.
2. The only contention raised by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh, Advocate is that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of being heard by the Additional District Judge who accepted the appeal of the respondents without service of any notice on the petitioner. This contention of the learned counsel is well founded. A perusal of the file of the appellate Court shows that the appeal was instituted on 5‑5‑1983 when it came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge on 7th May, 1983 who without admitting the appeal summoned the record for 15th May, 1983. However, as the record had not been received, the case was adjourned to 9th of June, 1983 and then to 14th June, 1983. The preliminary arguments were heard on 21st of June, 1983 and the case was fixed for orders on 23rd June, 1983. On that date the Additional District Judge instead of deciding the question as to admission of the appeal, proceeded to accept it probably under a misconception that he was hearing an admitted appeal. As a result of what has been stated above this petition succeeds, the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal filed by the respondents shall be deemed to be pending in the District Court and shall be decided afresh. The parties shall appear before the District Judge Lahore on 4th of, March, 1991 who may either hear the appeal himself or entrust the same to another Additional District Judge. H.B.T./5‑863/L Petition allowed.