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.
Review Petition No.2 of 1980, decided on 7th March, 1981.
(Petition for review of order, dated 11th December, 1979 in C.P.No.66 of 1979).
---S.13--Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, r. 1--Review--Order holding that concurrent findings of Courts that ex parte order of eviction, suffered from no legal defect or taint--Such order being final, could not be recalled--No inherent powers could be claimed and none was possessed under law to set aside such an order--Person not aggrieved person in proceedings, his absence could not affect proceedings.
Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th March, 1981.
The petitioner, a tenant who has been ejected from the premises in execution of the Controller's order, and who was refused leave to appeal by order, dated 11-12-1979 seeks review of that order.
2. The two grounds pressed into service are that an appeal against an order of the Rent Controller setting aside ex parte order of eviction was not competent and the deletion of the name of Barkat Ali a necessary party to the proceedings vitiated the proceedings.
3. In the order under consideration the conclusion of the two Courts that the ex parte order of eviction suffered from no legal defect or taint was final and could not be recalled was upheld. No inherent' power could be claimed, and none was possessed under the Rent Control Ordinance to set aside such an order.
4. Barkat Ali, being not an aggrieved person in these proceedings, his absence cannot affect the petitioner's claim. The petition is dismissed.
M . Z . M . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer