Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Appeal No. K‑76 of 1982, heard on 20th December, 1983.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 15‑‑Second appeal‑‑Review‑‑High Court has no jurisdiction to review its orders passed in second appeal under Rent Ordinance 1959.‑‑[Review].
Mussa Ali v. Muhammad Shafi P L D 1981 S C 94 rel.
Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Syed Hamid Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 20th December, 1983.
‑This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, dated 24‑4‑1982 dismissing a second appeal filed by the appellant.
Appellant filed the second appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, Karachi, dated 7‑7‑1976 directing his eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he was guilty of non‑compliance of the earlier order passed by him by which he directed the appellant to deposit rent in Court. The order of the Rent Controller, dated 7‑7‑1976 was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Karachi, and the first appeal filed by appellant was dismissed. Appeal, then filed a second appeal in the High Court. Learned Judge in the, High Court who initially dealt with the second appeal dismissed it in line by the judgment, dated 26‑8‑1976. However later, by the judgment, dated 18‑11‑1976 he reviewed his previous judgment and admitted the second appeal for regular hearing.
When the second appeal finally came up for hearing learned Judge in the High Court, after hearing the parties, held on the basis of rule laid down by this Court in Mussa Ali v. Muhammad Shafi, PLD 1981 S C 94, "that the High Court has no jurisdiction to review its orders passed in a second appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance", and on this view of the case he dismissed the second appeal.
Leave to appeal was however granted to the appellant in order to examine whether in view of the facts noted by the learned Judge in the High Court in the Judgment dated 15‑11‑1976; the second appeal ought to have been allowed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in the light of record before us, we find that no exception can be taken with the view that prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court that the second appeal having once been dismissed by the judgment, dated 26‑8‑‑1976, could not be revived by way of a review application. This appeal, therefore, has no force and is dismissed. Parties are however left to bear their own costs.
M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer