1988 PLP 1310 (SCMR)
Mian ZAHOOR DIN Petitioner Versus Mst. MUMTAZ JEHAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1310 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mian ZAHOOR DIN Petitioner Versus Mst. MUMTAZ JEHAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1310 (SCMR)?
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 1988 PLP 1310 (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 1310 (SCMR) (Mian ZAHOOR DIN Petitioner Versus Mst. MUMTAZ JEHAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- S.M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 22‑2‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in S.A.O. No.612 of 1977). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ejectment‑ Tenant evicted during pendency of petition for leave to appeal as a result of impugned order‑‑Controversy with regard to ownership/title pending in Supreme Court in other matters‑‑field, since no useful purpose would be served by granting leave to appeal, petition dismissed without prejudice to all available pleas to parties in the pending matters. Respondent No.1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑On an objection by respondents'‑side, the learned counsel stated that although the petitioner stands evicted as a result of the orders impugned in this petition, yet a controversy with regard to ownership/title is pending before this Court in other matters, which are yet to be fixed.
2. After hearing both the sides, we are satisfied that no useful purpose would be served now by granting leave to appeal in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed without prejudice to all available pleas to the parties in the matters which, according to the learned counsel, are still pending in this Court. M.I./Z‑31/S Petition dismissed.