| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 44 1957 SLD 44 1957 PLD 37 |
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal from Order No. 15 of 1956, decision dated: 18th October 1956
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Said Akbar for Appellant. Sh. Muhammad Shafi for
Respondent
Second Appeal from Order No. 15 of 1956, decision dated: 18th October 1956
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Said Akbar for Appellant. Sh. Muhammad Shafi for
Respondent
Mst. Hajan NAWAB BIBI----Plaintiff -€œ--Appellant
VS
Miss WATSON, MANAGER, CHURCH OF SCOTLAND MISSION GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, GUJRAT --Defendant--Respondent
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1956
Section: 13
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1956
Section: 13
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XLI,r.25
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (XIX of 1956)----- ------S. 13-Does not bar a regular suit for ejectment though ejectment can only take place in. terms of S. 13. Jurisdiction of the Civil Courts can be taken away either by express words or by necessary implication. There are no express words in the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (XIX of 1956) preventing a Civil Court from proceeding with a pending suit for ejectment, and the necessary implication only is that actual ejectment cannot take place until there is compliance with section 13 of the Ordinance. The jurisdiction which the Court had to try the suit for son ejectment cannot be taken away except to the extent that is necessary in order to give effect to the provisions of the new Ordinance. Section 13 of the Ordinance, therefore, does not bar a regular suit for ejectment' though ejectment can only take place in terms of section 13. The suit in such a case is not infructuous, inasmuch as, if the Ordinance somehow lapses, the decree can be executed. The effect of the Ordinance is only to suspend the decree for as long as the Ordinance is in force. Kirpa Ram Dhani Ram v. Chint Ram A I R 1947 Lah. 301 mentioned. (b) Remand-By Appellate Court---- ---On a question of law----When desirable-Civil Procedure Code (h of 1908), O. XLI, r. 25. A suit cannot ordinarily be remanded on account of a new objection taken in appeal. If, however, a new question of law is raised, the party against whom it is raised may pray for a remand on the ground that on account of the absence of this objection in the trial Court the attention of that party had not been drawn towards the necessity of proof of some facts bearing on the question of law that was raised and the Court may in its discretion remand the case to allow that party opportunity of further proof of relevant facts. JUDGMENT KAIKAUS, J.----This is an appeal against an order of remand made by Mr. Ata Ullah, Additional District Judge, Gujrat. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for ejectment and rent. The allegations were that the plaintiff was the landlord and the defendant, the Manager of the Church of Scotland Mission Girls…
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