Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 5399 = 1967 SLD 5399 = 1967 PLD 35
Sindh High Court
Reference in Second Appeals Nos. 287 and 295 of 1963, decided on 2nd December 1963.
Presented By: Inamullah and Wahiduddin Ahmed, JJ
M. Safdar for Appellant.  

Khan GHULAM HASAN KHAN-Appellant  

VERSUS

  DR. RASHID AHMED-Respondent  

Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)

Section: 15(4)

(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-----   ------- S. 15(4)-.High Court hearing appeal under section-Not persona designata.   (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)----   ----- S. 15(4)-Court-fee payable on memorandum of appeal   under section-Ad valorem according to value of subject-matter Article 1 of Sch. I and not Art. 11 of Sch. II, Court fees Act, 1870 applicable-Court fees Act (VII of 1870), Sch. I, Art.1 do Sch. II, Art.11.   Two appeals under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, were presented to the High Court. The office demanded that ad valorem court-fees should be paid in accordance with provisions of Article 1 of Schedule I to the Court-fees Act, 18.70. The appellants on the other hand contended that an order passed in proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is a mere order passed on an application and is not a decree of the Civil Court or an order having the force of a decree and therefore, such order falls within the purview of Article 11 of Schedule II to the Court-fees Act, 1870:   Held, the court-fee payable on appeal under section 15 (4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is to be paid in accordance with Schedule I, Article I of the Court-fees Act, 1870.   Under section 17 of the Ordinance an order passed by the Controller or by the Appellate Courts are to be executed by a Civil Court having jurisdiction in that area as if it were a decree of that Court. On the plain language of this provision of law it cannot be doubted that by statute an order passed in. such cases has been given the fore of the decree and it is not be of these order: which under the statute is to be enforced in the manner in which a decree is enforced. It is quite clear that section 17 of the Ordinance is not a mere provision as to the procedure which may be observed in enforcing the order. On the other hand it provides that the competent Court would execute such orders as if it were a decree of that Court. The contention that this provision of law simply provides a method of enforcing…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register