Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAHOOR AHMAD VS Respondent: MUMTAZ JEHAN
1988 S C M R 1646
1988 S C M R 1646
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Mian ZAHOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner
versus
Mst. MUMTAZ JEHAN and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.293 of 1988, decided on 5th June, 1988.
(From the judgment dated 29‑3‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No.1749‑D of 1987) .
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ejectment order‑‑Execution of‑‑Whether objection petition lay from proceedings relating to execution of Rent Controller's Order‑‑Petitioner's objection petition that he had also been ejected from Khasra number which belonged to him,' rejected by Executing Court holding that objection should have been raised at the time when bailiff was executing the order‑‑Appeal before District Judge failed‑‑High Court's view in revision that no objection petition lay from proceedings relating to execution of Rent Controller's order, being contrary to decision of Supreme Court, petition for leave to appeal converted into appeal and accepted‑‑Case remanded to High Court for disposal of revision petition on merits.
Muhammad Yasin v. Sheikh Ghulam Murtaza and another PLD 1988 S C 163 rel.
S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court with special permission for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th June, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition is converted into appeal. An order of eviction was passed against the petitioner by the Rent Controller and was in due course executed. He filed an objection petition alleging that even though the order of eviction related to khasras Nos.7219 and 7227 only he had also been ejected from khasra No.7220 which belonged to him. The executing Court rejected the objection holding that he should have raised the objection at the time when the bailiff was executing the order. He filed an appeal before the District Judge but without any success. He then filed a revision petition in the High Court learned Single Judge dismissed the revision petition solely on the ground that no objection petition lay from the proceedings relating to execution of Rent Controller's order
2. The view taken by the High Court is contrary to the decision of this Court in Muhammad Yasin v. Sheikh Ghulam Murtaza an another (P L D 1988 S C 163). We would accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for disposal of the revision petition on merits There will be no order as to costs.
M.I. /Z‑36/S Appeal accepted.