Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAFIQ VS Respondent: RENT CONTROLLER, SIALKOT
1988 S C M R 2095
1988 S C M R 2095
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and another‑‑Petitioners
versus
RENT CONTROLLER, SIALKOT and others‑‑Respondents.
Civil Petition No.446 of 1984, decided on 30th May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15‑2‑1984 in W.P. No.3288 of 1983).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Arts.185(3) Ps 199‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑Tenant's writ petition dismissed in default‑‑Contention that case was listed before High Court in category of motion cases while petitioners and their counsel were under the impression that writ petition having earlier been admitted to regular hearing it was to be listed in category of regular cases‑‑Order of admission of writ petition when read carefully by counsel for petitioner on asking of Court revealing that order relied upon by him actually was neither an admission of writ petition nor was it intended to be so and in no case it could be misunderstood as an order of admission‑‑The very basis of contention of petitioner becoming non‑existent, leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th May, 1988.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by tenant in an ejectment matter against the rejection of his application for restoration of his writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court in default.
2. Learned counsel has contended that the case was listed before the High Court in the category of Motion Cases while the petitioners and their learned counsel were under the impression that the writ petition having earlier been admitted to regular hearing, it was to be listed in the category of regular cases. On our asking, he read the so‑called order of admission of the writ petition. When seen carefully, it was discovered by the learned counsel that the order relied upon by him actually was neither an admission of the writ petition nor was it intended to be so and in no case it could be misunderstood as an order of admission. The very basis of contention of the learned counsel is non‑existent, leave to appeal is; therefore, refused.
M.Y.H./M‑557/S Leave to appeal refused.