1980 PLP 267 (SCMR)
Smt. VIDAYABAI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MOORAJMAL-Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 267 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel and Muhammad Haleem, JJ |
| Parties | Smt. VIDAYABAI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MOORAJMAL-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Cede (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 267 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Cede (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 267 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Dorab Patel and Muhammad Haleem, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 267 (SCMR) (Smt. VIDAYABAI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MOORAJMAL-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sadiq Ali Khoja, Advocate and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th January, 1980.
- Sadiq Ali Khoja, Advocate and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind dated 16th May, 1979, in Second Appeal No. 63 of 1974).
O. XXXII, r. 7-Principle of equity enshrined in r. 7 of O. XXXII, C. P. C. Held, should be followed is rent cases Submission of petitioner accepted, petition converted into appeal and allowed Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13.
Judgment & Decree
O. XXXII, r. 7‑Principle of equity enshrined in r. 7 of O. XXXII, C. P. C. Held, should be followed is rent cases Submission of petitioner accepted, petition converted into appeal and allowed Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.
13. Sadiq Ali Khoja, Advocate and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th January, 1980. DORAB PATEL, J.‑The petitioners are the ‑ heirs of one Jiandmal, who was a tenant of the respondent. In the events that happened, the respond6nt filed an application for Jiandmal's eviction on the ground of non‑payment of rent. Jiandmal died during the pendency of the application, therefore, the' petition was contested by the petitioners and the eviction application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Jacobabad by his order dated 16‑3‑1972. The respondent challenged the Rent Controller's order in an appeal in the District Court, which was allowed .by a learned, Additional District Judge, Jacobabad on 14‑2‑1974. Therefore, the petitioners had filed a second appeal in the Sind High‑ Court and this appeal was dismissed on the basis of a concession made by learned counsel. Hence this petition for leave. The petition is pressed on the ground that the learned counsel of the petitioners had no authority to compromise the appeal on their behalf and on the further ground that the petitioners were minors; therefore, the High Court had erred in law in dismissing the appeal on a concession, albeit by counsel, without applying its mind to the question whether the compromise was in the interest of the minors. Mr. Khoja referred us to the provisions of rule 7 of Order XXXII of the Civil Procedure Code and submitted that even if they were not applicable in terms to proceedings in rent cases, the beneficial principle laid down in this rule had to be followed in rent cases. We agree with this submission and we have to record with great satisfaction that Mr. Noori, who appeared for the caveator conceded that the principle of equity enshrined in rule 7 of Order XXXII of the Civil Procedure Code should‑be applied to rent cases. 'Therefore, we convert this petition into an appeal and allow it. The impugned judgment is se aside and as the case is a very old one, we hope that the High Court will dispose of the appeal before its summer vacation. In view of the very fair position taken by the respondent, we do not make any order as to costs. Petition converted into appeal and allowed.