Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Citation: 1970 PLD 599
Court: Sindh High Court
Year: 1970
Decision Date: 1970-02-25
Parties: ABDUL SHAKOOR vs KAY KHUSRU BARMAN ARDESHEDIAR AND 6 Other
Result: Appeal dismissed JUDGMENT JUDGMENT GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, J.-----This is a certificated Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4-3-1968 by which he dismissed the Second Appeal of the present appellant. The certificate granted by the learned Judge is for the consideration of the following question ---The short question, that is, whether failure to furnish security within the time prescribed by the first appellate Court attracted the penalty prescribed by section 13 (6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.--- PLD 1964 Kar.
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Ghulam Safdar Shah, Muhammad Ali Sayeed Title: ABDUL SHAKOOR vs KAY KHUSRU BARMAN ARDESHEDIAR AND 6 Other Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 94 of 1968 Date of Judgment:1970-02-25 Reported As: PLD 1970 Karachi 599 Result: Appeal dismissed JUDGMENT JUDGMENT GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, J.-----This is a certificated Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4-3-1968 by which he dismissed the Second Appeal of the present appellant. The certificate granted by the learned Judge is for the consideration of the following question ---The short question, that is, whether failure to furnish security within the time prescribed by the first appellate Court attracted the penalty prescribed by section 13 (6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.--- PLD 1964 Kar. 418 and PLD 1965 Kar. 367) in which it was held that the provisions of section 13 (6) of the Ordinance, being penal in nature, must be strictly construed and unless the default of the tenant fell within the express language of that section his defence was not liable to be struck off: 2. We have heard Mr. A. K. Niazi Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Naimuddin Advocate for the respondents. The grievance of Mr. Niazi is that this finding of the learned Single Judge is in disregard of section 107 (2), C. P. C., and consequently erroneous. In order to appreciate this contention section 107, C. P. C., and the explanation to section…
Read the full judgment on Al Wakeelo — Pakistan's AI-powered legal research platform.