Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1514 1998 SLD 1514 1998 CLC 1987
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.D-2235 and Miscellaneous No.5473 of 1996, decision dated: 21st May, 1997
KAMAL MANSUR ALAM AND ZAFAR HADI SHAH, JJ
Muhammad Raghib Baqi for Petitioner. Mian Mushtaq Ahmad for
Respondent No. Naraindas C. Motiani, A.A.-G

MEHMOOD AHMED

VS

STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-------S. 21---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Interlocutory order--­Constitutional petition against such order---Maintainability---Trial Court passed interim order on an interlocutory application filed by the tenant---No appeal having been provided against interim order under S.21, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, High Court dismissed the petition assailing such order with observations that if Constitutional petition was to be entertained at such stage the very purpose of S.21 of the Ordinance would be defeated---Tenant would have opportunity to file appeal if the final order went against him and then he could raise this ground too. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 4(2)---Qualification of Rent Controller---Stage of raising such objection--­Tenant raised objection regarding qualification of Rent Controller in appellate forum---Tenant could raise such objection before Rent Controller at any stage during the proceedings and not before appellate forum. ORDER This Constitution petition is directed against an order, dated 3-I1-1996 passed by the Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (South), whereby he dismissed petitioner's application for permission to cross-examine the respondent No. I's witness. It appears that the affidavit-in-evidence of respondents' witness was filed on 28-9-1992 and since then the cross-examination of the witness continued to be put off till 22-1-1996 when the Controller closed the cross-examination. Prior to this, on an earlier occasion too the cross-examination of the same witness had been closed but at that time it was reopened with the consent of the respondent No. I's counsel. Indisputably the impugned order is in the nature of an interim order passed on an interlocutory application filed on behalf of the petitioner,…
🔒
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