Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ATTA MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: DISTRICT JUDGE, BHAKKARHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1401
1988 S C M R 1401
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ATTA MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner
versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, BHAKKAR and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.134 of 1985, decided on 28th May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑1‑1985 in W.P. No.4779 of 1984).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑S.13‑‑Genuineness of rent note‑‑Contention that disputed document seen and compared by the Court, with the admitted signatures on the power‑of‑attorney was not the original one and that it was a copy‑‑Examination of said document, which was a photo copy did not show that the original was not before the Court when the comparison took place‑‑Record also did not show that in case when only a copy of the disputed document was being compared by Court why tire petitioner's side did not raise such objection‑‑Supreme Court declined interference with findings of fact of Courts below.
Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing:. 28th hay, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant in , a rent restriction matter against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court.
The controversy raised by the learned counsel relates to the genuineness or otherwise of the rent note found to have been executed by the petitioner.
The learned counsel contended that the disputed document seen and compared by the Court with the admitted signatures on the Power of Attorney was not the original one and that it was a copy.
He has drawn our attention to page 36 of the paper book (in some paper books it is page 34). It is marked as Exh.A‑1 (Annex.A). Even the examination of this document which is a photo‑copy does not show that the original was not before the Court when the comparison took place. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel from record to show that in case when only a copy of the disputed document was being compared by the Court why the petitioner's side did not raise this objection.
After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any justification for interference with the findings of fact reached by the learned Courts below. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
M . B. A. /A‑248/S Petition dismissed