Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: STATE LIFE INSURANCE VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Malik Muhammad Qayyum Title: STATE LIFE INSURANCE vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others Case No.: Writ Petition No,4690 of 1983 Date of Judgment:1991-02-18 Reported As: 1991 CLC 1469 Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' The petitioner claims to be the landlord of property bearing No,S-19-R68, commonly known as Gian Mansion, situate at Shahra-e-Quaid-e-Azam, Lahore, which is in occupation of respondents No,2 and 3 on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the written statement filed by them respondents Nos.2 and 3 denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller vide his order dated 29-3-1983 accepted this petition and directed the eviction of the respondents from the property in dispute. Aggrieved by this order, respondents 2 and 3 filed an appeal which was entrusted to an Additional District Judge who proceeded to accept the same on 23-6-1983. This judgment of the Additional District Judge has been assailed by the petitioner by filing this constitutional petition. 2. The only contention raised by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh, Advocate is that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of being heard by the Additional District Judge who accepted the appeal of the respondents without service of any notice on the petitioner. This contention of the learned counsel is well founded. A perusal of the file of the appellate Court shows that the appeal was instituted on 5-5-1983 when it came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge on 7th May, 1983 who without admitting the appeal summoned the record for 15th May, 1983. However, as the record had not been received, the case was adjourned to 9th of June, 1983 and then to 14th June, 1983. The preliminary arguments were heard on 21st of June, 1983 and the case was fixed for orders on 23rd June, 1983. On that date the Additional District Judge instead of deciding the question as to admission of the appeal, proceeded to accept it probably under a misconception that he was hearing an admitted appeal.
---
## Page 2
' As a result of what has been stated above this petition succeeds, the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal filed by the respondents shall be deemed to be pending in the District Court and shall be decided afresh. ' The parties shall appear before the District Judge Lahore on 4th of March, 1991 who may either hear the appeal himself or entrust the same to another Additional District Judge.