Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 1238 2014 SLD 1238 2014 PLC 219
Balochistan High Court
Civil Revision No.233 of 2012, decision dated: 6-02-2013.hearing DATE : 14-11-2012
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

GHULAM HUSSAIN

VS

CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY S&GAD, HOUSING ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE, QUETTA and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Documents essential to be considered by court---Scope---Only contents of plaint would be seen. (b) Residential Accommodation at Quetta (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 2009---Rr. 10(11) & 11(14)---Official residence, allotment of---Preferential right of allotment claimed by a person having come into possession of such residence without permission of authorities concerned---Validity---Government servant in order to claim such allotment would have to establish his right within parameters provided in Residential Accommodation at Quetta (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 2009---Such person could not claim to be an "informant" of subletting and his possession would be as an "illegal occupant"---Notice to such person for vacation of the premises, if issued by authorities, would not be illegal in circumstances. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Exercise of powers by court under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Scope---Court could reject plaint, but could not dismiss suit. JUDGMENT MRS. JUSTICE SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---- Feeling aggrieved of the order and decree dated 5th November, 2011 of the Senior Civil Judge-I, Quetta, whereby the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and order dated 22nd June, 2012 of Additional District Judge-II, Quetta, whereby the appeal preferred against the order also met with the same fate, the petitioner filed the instant petition. It was his contention that in contravention of the law and in misappreciation of the facts, and the material on record the impugned orders were passed. Further, neither the issues were framed, nor the parties were allowed to produce their respective evidence. Furthermore, the oral, and the documentary evidence was not considered. Therefore, resultantly the decision arrived by the courts below was in contravention of the facts. It was further contended that the rent of house in question was regularly deducted from his (petitioner's) salary, being a supporting fact, was not duly considered, thereby prejudiced his right. It was prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the suit be remanded to the trial court…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492