1982 PLP (1) (CLC)
MAHMOODUL HASSAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH ETC. ‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP (1) (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khurshid Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MAHMOODUL HASSAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH ETC. ‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP (1) (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP (1) (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khurshid Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP (1) (CLC) (MAHMOODUL HASSAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Syed GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH ETC. ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Alam Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Art. 199 and West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 15‑All contentions raised in petition fully dealt‑with in earlier judgment between same parties‑‑No fresh question arising‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. O. No. 82 of 1979 had arisen in respect of shop No. 51 McLeod Road. Lahore between the same parties and the same was dismissed by my Judgment dated 18th June, 1980. In the present case the dispute relates to the house and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is dated 18th June, 1980. The learned Additional District Judge, Lahore has rightly observed that in the earlier Judgment all the contentions raised in this present petition had been fully dealt with I have asked the learned counsel if he would like to raise any question other than those already dealt with between the parties in relation to dispute relating to shop but he failed to point out any. As the present writ petition raises the same question of law and fact as raised in the aforesaid appeal but the learned counsel could not substantiate his case. 2. This writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed in limine. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.