1985 PLP 1249 (SCMR)
Hafiz ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. BIRJEES BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1249 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Hafiz ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. BIRJEES BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1249 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1249 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1249 (SCMR) (Hafiz ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. BIRJEES BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court for Sh. Ataullah Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 14‑5‑1980 in W.P. 15‑R of 1975). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Discretionary jurisdiction of Supreme Court‑‑Petitioner, instead of honouring his admissions/ commitment made in solemn proceedings before Court of law, trying to take undue advantage of time allowed to him‑‑Neither a fit case nor petitioner is a fit person for grant of discretionary relief by grant of leave to appeal‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 14‑5‑1980 whereby respondent's constitutional petition arising out of a dispute regarding an evacuee shop was allowed, has been brought to challenge through this petition for leave to appeal.
2. A shop in possession of the petitioner was made the subject‑matter of several eviction petitions filed from the respondent side against him on the basis that it stood transferred to that party. Each time the petitioner while accepting the said transfer and its effect of his having become a statutory tenant, entered into compromise with the landlady and obtained concessions. The last concession was that he was to remain in possession only till 29th of September, 1974. He, however, instead of honouring that commitment submitted a form for transfer of the shop in his possession and obtained a transfer order on 25th January, 1974 in his favour whereby it was treated as a different shop. It was given a fresh No. 112‑A and was transferred to the petitioner on the basis of his possession. The respondent challenged the transfer in the High Court through a Constitutional petition which was allowed.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition have vehemently raised two‑fold contentions: One, that the petitioner was not bound by his admissions in so far as the realities about the shop in dispute are concerned; and, two, that notwithstanding the admissions of the petitioner the findings of fact reached by the Settlement Authority in the fresh order, dated 25th of January, 1974, have been annulled by the High Court without finding any serious fault with them.
4. Grant of leave to appeal by this Court is within discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. The fact that the petitioner admitted the respondent as landlady in several proceedings and treated the transfer to her of the property in dispute as valid in solemn proceedings before Courts of law, are not such admissions which can be ignored in a discretionary jurisdiction. He tried to take undue advantage of the time allowed to him by the landlady and got the matter re‑opened which had finally been settled in accordance with his own admissions. In these circumstances we do not consider it a fit case nor the petitioner a fit person for the grant of discretionary relief by grant of leave to appeal. The petition accordingly is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.