| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 157 1985 SLD 157 1985 PLD 376 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 18-K, 17-K of 1984, 128-K of 1983 and Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 387-K and 254-K of 1984, decision dated: 10-03-1985, hearing DATE : 24-01-1985
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
Fazle Ghani Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record, Syed Zaki Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record, Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record, M.
Civil Appeals Nos. 18-K, 17-K of 1984, 128-K of 1983 and Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 387-K and 254-K of 1984, decision dated: 10-03-1985, hearing DATE : 24-01-1985
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
Fazle Ghani Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record, Syed Zaki Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record, Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record, M.
IDREES AHMAD AND others
VS
Hafiz FIDA AHMAD KHAN AND 4 others
Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)
Section: 27
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 6
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
Section: 15(3)
(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)---S. 27-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15 (3)-Second appeal-Right of second appeal vesting in parties under repealed Ordinance of 1959, held, remained intact and undisturbed by anything in the new Ordinance of 1979-Second appeal was, therefore, competent in all such cases. The Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is prospective in operation and does not, therefore, overreach and destroy rights of the parties accrued under the repealed Ordinance by any such effect. However, section 27 expressly deals with the effect of repeal of, the previous Ordinance on the pending proceedings. On a careful analysis of this section it would appear that two categories of pending proceedings were separately dealt with. In the first category were placed all appeals and such cases before a Controller as are fixed for argument or and it was laid down that, notwithstanding the repeal of the old Ordinance under which such appeals and cases may have been instituted, shall be disposed of in accordance with the said Ordinance. The other category was of the residual cases instituted under the old Ordinance, which were pending before a Controller immediately before the commencement of the new Ordinance, which were to be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the new Ordinance. Orders made and proceedings taken in any such cases were given effect as orders and proceedings under the new Ordinance. This residual category apparently related to pending proceedings before the Controller in which arguments were not heard or cases not fixed for . This intention clearly was not to interfere with the rights of the parties in regard to appeals which would include first appeals pending before the Appellate Authority under the old Ordinance and cases pending in the Court of the Controller which had reached a stage after the hearing of the arguments. All such cases were left to be governed by the provisions of the repealed law, but in regard to cases other than those mentioned above a different intention was manifested and the application of the old law was excluded, with the result that all…
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