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 Petition for Special Leave to Application No. 59 of 1982, decided on 4th November, 19134.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑11‑1981, passed in Writ Petition No. 10444 of 1980).
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑Writ petition‑ Maintainability of‑‑Order of ejectment challenged in writ jurisdiction‑‑Only contention raised before High Court being that Rent Controller and District Judge had not properly appreciated evidence on question of fact involved in case‑‑Writ petition, held, was not competent‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Abdul Rahman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others P L D 1981 S C 522 rel.
Sh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court, Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date, of hearing: 4th November, 1984.
‑Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 17‑11‑1981, in a rent matter.
2. The facts, briefly, are that the respondents filed an application, for the eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question, located in Landa Bazar, Lahore, in the Court of Rent Controller, Lahore. After considering the evidence led by the parties the learned Rent Controller ordered their eviction, vide judgment, dated 1‑3‑1975. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said judgment which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 18‑9‑1980. They then filed a Constitutional petition in the High Court which, too, was dismissed.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have now come up to this Court through the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners frankly admitted before us that the only contention that he had raised before the High Court was that the two Courts below (i.e. the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge) had not properly appreciated the evidence on the question of fact involved in the case.
We are of the view that the petitioners' writ petition was not competent in view of the observation by this Court in Abdul Rahman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others P L D 1981 S C 522.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being frivolous.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer