1990 PLP 1137 (SCMR)
Mrs. JANA BAI‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. GULSHAN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1137 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Mrs. JANA BAI‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. GULSHAN and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1137 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1137 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1137 (SCMR) (Mrs. JANA BAI‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. GULSHAN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.I.Chundrigar, Bar‑at‑Law, and M.Shabbir Ghaury for Petitioner.
- Suleman Koser, Advocate Supreme Court and Aziz Dastgir Advocate- on‑Record for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
A.I.Chundrigar, Bar‑at‑Law, and M.Shabbir Ghaury for Petitioner. Suleman Koser, Advocate Supreme Court and Aziz Dastgir Advocate- on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1984. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to Appeal has been sought from judgment dated 9‑1‑1984 of the Sindh High Court; whereby, while setting aside the order of eviction of the petitioner (tenant), the case was remanded with permission to the landlords to amend their application for eviction. The two respondents applied for the eviction of the petitioner on ground of their personal requirement. In the application the requirement was more specifically mentioned of only one of them namely respondent No.1 and her family. At the trial, however, the requirement of the respondent No.2 and his son Suleman Piyar Ally was canvassed from the landlord's side. Although the learned Rent Controller directed eviction of the petitioner on positive finding regarding requirement of the respondents, a learned Single Judge in the High Court thought that there was a conflict in the pleadings and evidence of the respondents. Accordingly treating it as a case of prejudice to the petitioner, the order of his eviction was set aside. At the same time feeling a need for a fair chance to the respondents, the case was remanded with a permission to them to amend the pleadings, under certain conditions. The petitioner tenant feeling aggrieved by the remand order as also the permission to amend the pleadings, has sought leave to appeal. His learned counsel has raised two‑fold contention: One that the remand was not permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure; and two, that the permission to amend the pleadings is against the provisions of the C.P.C. as also is unjustified on merits. After hearing him on these points we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Because in case it is assumed that setting aside of the order of ejectment of the petitioner was justified on the grounds stated in the impugned judgment, the order of remand with permission to amend the pleadings would be an eminently fair approach, in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly it is not necessary to examine the contentions any more. The petition thus is dismissed. H.B.T./J‑72/S. Petition dismissed.