2010 PLP 1760 (MLD)
MUSAWWAR IQBAL — Appellant Versus ZAMAN ALVI — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1760 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUSAWWAR IQBAL — Appellant Versus ZAMAN ALVI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1760 (MLD)?
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 2010 PLP 1760 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1760 (MLD) (MUSAWWAR IQBAL — Appellant Versus ZAMAN ALVI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Kazim Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 13 & 15
Production of certain documents in the shape of additional evidence
Respondents had filed an application for placing on record certain documents in the shape of additional evidence in appeal
Both the parties had agreed that impugned judgments could be set aside and the Rent Controller be ordered to decide application of respondents for additional evidence; and then decide the ejectment petition afresh within a shortest period
Request of both the parties being reasonable, with the consent of both the parties, impugned orders were set aside
Ejectment petition was remanded to Rent Controller with the direction that respondent would file an application for additional evidence.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.
This second appeal has been preferred against the orders of appellate Court, dated 7-7-2008 and order, dated 30-4-2008 passed by the Rent Controller Gujranwala.
2. Both the parties argued the case at length. The respondents have filed an application under Order XIII, Rules 1 and 4 for placing on record certain documents in the shape of additional evidence in present appeal. The dispute between the parties is that property subject-matter of the ejectment petition is not partitioned and as such the tenant is claiming that he is in occupation of the property as owner of the same on the basis of sale deed of half portion of the shop. The sale-deed of half portion of the shop is admitted by the landlord. The tenant is claiming that there is no partition of the property i.e. shop and he is the share-holder of each and every inch of the shop unless partitioned. Learned counsel has placed on record certified copy of the partition proceedings conducted by the court in other suit.
3. Without commenting on any document or evidence both the parties have agreed that both the impugned judgments may be set aside and the learned Rent Controller be ordered to decide the application of respondent for additional evidence and then decide the ejectment petition afresh within a shortest period.
4. The request of both the learned counsel is reasonable and as such with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties the impugned orders are set aside. The ejectment petition is remanded to the learned Rent Controller with the direction that respondent will file an application for additional evidence in lines of the application C.M. No.371-C/2009 filed in this Court. Learned Rent Controller will decide the said application and after that will decide the ejectment petition afresh, however, if any party of the ejectment petition wants to produce further evidence, he will be at liberty to do so. With these observations this S.A.O. is allowed. There is no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-323/L Order accordingly.