Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.138 of 1985, decided on 8th April 1986.

‑‑‑S.114 & O.XLVII, R.1‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.15‑‑Review‑‑Right of‑‑Nature of such right‑‑Review against order of High Court passed in appeal‑‑Competency‑‑Right of review being substantive right and always creation of relevant statute, assumption that review in appeal was continuation of appeal, held, not correct‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, neither expressly nor by reference had bestowed any powers of review High Court, had no jurisdiction to review orders passed in second appeal under Ordinance VI of 1959.‑‑[Review].

Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi P L D 1981 S C 94 ref.

Abdul Hamid Khan for Appellant.

Syed Madad Ali Shah for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th. April 1986. .

This matter has been placed before us in view of the order of the learned Chief Justice, dated 9‑3‑1986, as Mr. Justice Ahmad Ali U. Qureshi is not available at Hyderabad.

This Review application is directed against the order of Mr. Justice Ahmad Ali. U.Qureshi, dated 18‑9‑1985 by which lie dismissed the First Rent Appeal filed against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller whereby the defence of the appellant was struck off.

Learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection that the review is not competent and he has relied upon the case of Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi P L D 1981 S C 94 wherein it has been observed that right of review is a substantive right and is always a creation of the relevant statute on the subject. The assumption that a review in appeal is a continuation of the appeal, is not correct with the result that the further corollary drawn there from in favour existence of a right of review on that score will also consequently. It has been further observed while considering West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance that as the Ordinance neither expressly is by reference bestows any powers of review, the High Court has jurisdiction to review its orders passed in Second Appeal under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance.

Respectfully following the above authority we hold that the Revi petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.

It is, therefore, not necessary to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no power of Attorney was filed by the applicant and the appeal could not be dismissed in limine.

H.B.T. Review petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.