Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 62 of 1971, decided on 18th March, 1980.
‑‑ S. 15‑Civil Court‑Special appeal‑Rent Controller, not being a civil Court and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 being not applicable to proceedings under Ordinance a special jurisdiction created for purpose and appeals under S. 15 of Ordinance in nature of special appeals.‑[Jurisdiction].
Mst. Pang Bibi v. Mahala and others A I R 1928 Lab. 488 and N. Q. Industries v. Mrs. Bapai Kaikhusro P L D 1958 Kar. 598 ref.
‑‑ Reading words in a statute when same actually not existing Ordinarily not permissible‑Courts may in such event be accused of usurping functions of Legislature‑Permissible however to read words not actually existing in statute if such words translate faithfully inten tion of Legislature or when necessary to read such words in statute to avoid risk of reducing statute to absurdity or when effect of a beneficial provision likely to be destroyed by clinging to ordinary meaning of terms.
‑‑ S. 15(4)‑Amendment‑Notwithstanding draftsman's omission to amend subsection (4) of S. 15 of Ordinance to make it consistent with subsection (1), remedy provided by subsection can be retained by reading words "Appellate Authority appointed by Government" under cl. (a) of subsection (1) of S. 15.‑[Interpretation of statutes].
Sarfaraz Khan v. Crown P L D 1950 Lah. 384; Working Muslim Mission etc. v. Crown P L D 1956 F C 209; 1 Lt.‑Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty P L D 1962 S C 335 and Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All E R 164 ref.
‑‑ Ss. 5 & 29(2)‑Delay, condonation of‑While S. 5 of Act confers a power to condone delay in institution of a cause, relevant provision relating to applicability of S. 5 of Act in proceedings under a special or local law, held, contained in S. 29(2) of Act.‑[Condonation of delay].
‑‑ S. 29(2)‑Limitation period‑Special law itself providing a period of limitation different from period prescribed therefore by First Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908 time provided in special law by force of S. 3 of Act deemed to have been prescribed in Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908 and in such case only Ss. 4, 9 to 13 & 22 of Act, deemed to apply unless their application expressly excluded by Special law and remaining provisions of Act including S. 5 of Act to apply to West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959), S. 15(4).
The Canara Bank Ltd. v. The Warden Insurance Company Limited I R 1963 Bom. 35 ref.
‑‑ S. 29(2)‑Special law‑Provisions of S.19(2) of Act, held, attracted only when special law makes provisions in derogation of Act [Interpretation of statutes].
Hatim All v. Mst. Zulekha Bibi and others P L D 1964 Kar. 399 ref.
S. 15(4) read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 29(2) & 5 Second appeal‑Section 5 of Act providing for a power to condone delay, held, not applicable to appeals under S. 15(4) of Ordinance.
Mansoor Hussain v. Murid P L D 1974 Lab. 300; Syed Mehdi Hussain v. Syed Mahmood Alam P L D 1970 Lab. 6 ; Evacuee Trust Board v. Muslim High School P L D 1973 Kar. 618 and Mst. Jamila Subhan Shaikh v. Mst. Zahoor Fatima P L D 1977 Kar. 749 ref.
Mirza A. Rashid and Muzaffar Hassan for Appellant.
S. M. Sadiq for Respondent.
Dates of hearing: 12th and 18th March, 1980.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer