| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1984 SLG 329 1984 SLD 329 1984 SCMR 21 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 199 of 1976, decision dated: 26-04-1982 (On appeal from the judgment and order dated 17-12-1975 of the Lahore High Count, Lahore, in Regular Second Appeal No. 480 of 1975)
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 199 of 1976, decision dated: 26-04-1982 (On appeal from the judgment and order dated 17-12-1975 of the Lahore High Count, Lahore, in Regular Second Appeal No. 480 of 1975)
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN AND others
VS
. ABDUL REHMAN AND others--Respondents.
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---- Art. 185(1) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100--Second appeal -Scope Second appeal from appellate of variance Judgment of High Court in interfering with such not found in violation of principle laid down by Supreme Court Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepail and 4 others P L D 1969 S C Ch.M.Z.Khalid advocate -on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th April, 1982. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.--Leave to a from judgment dated 17-12-1975 of the Lahore High court where by regular second appeal filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, was partly allowed. The said respondents had filed a suit seeking declaration that an order passed by a learned Rent Controller at the instance of the present petitioners (defendants Nos. 1-3) on 10-6-1965 directing the eviction of respondent No. 3, was on account of collusion by the petitioners with the said respondents and thus being illegal and void, was ineffective against the rights of the said plaintiffs, who, it was further prayed in the suit, should be declared as owners in possession of the suit property, a house. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were subsequently added as defendants Nos. 5 to 7 in the suit. The present petitioners defended the suit and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-- (1)Whether suit is incompetent in the present form O. D (2)Whether the suit has been incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? O.D. (3) Whether plaintiffs have locus stand to bring this suit? O.P. (4) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit house as its owners if so, what is its effect? O. D (5) Whether order dated 10-5-1965 passed by Rent Controller, Multan Cantonment is void, illegal, inoperative and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs? O. P. (6) Whether defendants are entitled to special. Costs under section 35-A, C. P. C., if so, to what extent? O.D. (7) Relief? The learned trial Judge decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents 1-2 and 4-6) and accordingly decreed the suit. On petitioners' first appeal, a learned District Judge…
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