Citation Name : 2015 CLC 1383 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Dr. ARIF HAYAT
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
S. 17—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Petition for ejectment of tenant—consolidation of eviction petition and civil suit—Application for consolidation of civil suit with eviction petition was dismissed—Validity—Apprehension of conflict findings existed in the cases pending between the parties on similar issues—Matters were at preliminary stage and same could be decided together by consolidation —No bar had been provided in relevant laws to proceed an eviction application by adopting procedure laid down under Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Civil court might not act as Rent Controller while proceeding with such a case—Trial in the eviction application was a sort of inquiry affording the parties an opportunity of hearing—Other procedure laid down in Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses and examining them on oath—Compelling the discovery and production of documents and other material evidence or issuing a commission for the examination of witnesses were powers already exercised by the civil court—If any other power was exercised while deciding eviction application for which no bar was provided by law then it would not make Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 redundant—Scope of such law was not deemed to be inadequate if civil suit was tried together with the eviction application—Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not tenable under the law which was set aside—Application for consolidation of cases was accepted—Trial Court was directed to proceed with all the cases after consolidation of cases and commence proceedings from the stage where the same were left—Revision was accepted in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2012 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NAEEM
Ss. 18, 14 & 17—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—consolidation of proceedings ongoing simultaneously before Rent Controller in an ejectment petition and civil court for enforcement of award under Ss.18, 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Scope—ejectment petition before the Rent Controller was in its final stage of adjudication, and the matter had also been referred to a panel arbitrators; whose award was filed before the civil court for enforcement—Petitioner had sought amalgamation of proceedings on the ground that the Presiding Officer before whom the petition for enforcement of award was filed was also incidentally the Rent Controller in the matter—Said application of the petitioner was’ dismissed—Validity—ejectment petition before Rent Controller was at concluding stage whereas the petition moved under Arbitration Act, 1940 before the civil court was at the initial stages—Proceedings under the ‘Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be taken up by the civil court while ejectment petition was to be decided by the Rent Controller who was a persona designate under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; as such, the two jurisdictions were entirely different—Pleadings, issues, evidence and other material in both the matters being different, ought to be decided independently and separately—Civil Judge could be assigned different jurisdictions, for example, as a Rent Controller or Family Judge, but it did not mean that while exercising different jurisdictions, all proceedings before the same Civil Judge could be amalgamated—Presiding Officer, in the present case, was the same who was acting as a Rent Controller, and also the Civil Judge, but in one he was a persona designata and was exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction, whereas with regard to the other he was acting as a Civil Judge under the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Neither two jurisdictions nor the proceedings under two entirely different laws could be consolidated or amalgamated—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 1383 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Dr. ARIF HAYAT
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
S. 17—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Petition for ejectment of tenant—consolidation of eviction petition and civil suit—Application for consolidation of civil suit with eviction petition was dismissed—Validity—Apprehension of conflict findings existed in the cases pending between the parties on similar issues—Matters were at preliminary stage and same could be decided together by consolidation —No bar had been provided in relevant laws to proceed an eviction application by adopting procedure laid down under Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Civil court might not act as Rent Controller while proceeding with such a case—Trial in the eviction application was a sort of inquiry affording the parties an opportunity of hearing—Other procedure laid down in Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses and examining them on oath—Compelling the discovery and production of documents and other material evidence or issuing a commission for the examination of witnesses were powers already exercised by the civil court—If any other power was exercised while deciding eviction application for which no bar was provided by law then it would not make Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 redundant—Scope of such law was not deemed to be inadequate if civil suit was tried together with the eviction application—Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not tenable under the law which was set aside—Application for consolidation of cases was accepted—Trial Court was directed to proceed with all the cases after consolidation of cases and commence proceedings from the stage where the same were left—Revision was accepted in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2012 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NAEEM
Ss. 18, 14 & 17—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—consolidation of proceedings ongoing simultaneously before Rent Controller in an ejectment petition and civil court for enforcement of award under Ss.18, 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Scope—ejectment petition before the Rent Controller was in its final stage of adjudication, and the matter had also been referred to a panel arbitrators; whose award was filed before the civil court for enforcement—Petitioner had sought amalgamation of proceedings on the ground that the Presiding Officer before whom the petition for enforcement of award was filed was also incidentally the Rent Controller in the matter—Said application of the petitioner was’ dismissed—Validity—ejectment petition before Rent Controller was at concluding stage whereas the petition moved under Arbitration Act, 1940 before the civil court was at the initial stages—Proceedings under the ‘Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be taken up by the civil court while ejectment petition was to be decided by the Rent Controller who was a persona designate under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; as such, the two jurisdictions were entirely different—Pleadings, issues, evidence and other material in both the matters being different, ought to be decided independently and separately—Civil Judge could be assigned different jurisdictions, for example, as a Rent Controller or Family Judge, but it did not mean that while exercising different jurisdictions, all proceedings before the same Civil Judge could be amalgamated—Presiding Officer, in the present case, was the same who was acting as a Rent Controller, and also the Civil Judge, but in one he was a persona designata and was exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction, whereas with regard to the other he was acting as a Civil Judge under the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Neither two jurisdictions nor the proceedings under two entirely different laws could be consolidated or amalgamated—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 1383 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Dr. ARIF HAYAT
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
S. 17—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Petition for ejectment of tenant—consolidation of eviction petition and civil suit—Application for consolidation of civil suit with eviction petition was dismissed—Validity—Apprehension of conflict findings existed in the cases pending between the parties on similar issues—Matters were at preliminary stage and same could be decided together by consolidation —No bar had been provided in relevant laws to proceed an eviction application by adopting procedure laid down under Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Civil court might not act as Rent Controller while proceeding with such a case—Trial in the eviction application was a sort of inquiry affording the parties an opportunity of hearing—Other procedure laid down in Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses and examining them on oath—Compelling the discovery and production of documents and other material evidence or issuing a commission for the examination of witnesses were powers already exercised by the civil court—If any other power was exercised while deciding eviction application for which no bar was provided by law then it would not make Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 redundant—Scope of such law was not deemed to be inadequate if civil suit was tried together with the eviction application—Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not tenable under the law which was set aside—Application for consolidation of cases was accepted—Trial Court was directed to proceed with all the cases after consolidation of cases and commence proceedings from the stage where the same were left—Revision was accepted in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2012 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NAEEM
Ss. 18, 14 & 17—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—consolidation of proceedings ongoing simultaneously before Rent Controller in an ejectment petition and civil court for enforcement of award under Ss.18, 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Scope—ejectment petition before the Rent Controller was in its final stage of adjudication, and the matter had also been referred to a panel arbitrators; whose award was filed before the civil court for enforcement—Petitioner had sought amalgamation of proceedings on the ground that the Presiding Officer before whom the petition for enforcement of award was filed was also incidentally the Rent Controller in the matter—Said application of the petitioner was’ dismissed—Validity—ejectment petition before Rent Controller was at concluding stage whereas the petition moved under Arbitration Act, 1940 before the civil court was at the initial stages—Proceedings under the ‘Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be taken up by the civil court while ejectment petition was to be decided by the Rent Controller who was a persona designate under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; as such, the two jurisdictions were entirely different—Pleadings, issues, evidence and other material in both the matters being different, ought to be decided independently and separately—Civil Judge could be assigned different jurisdictions, for example, as a Rent Controller or Family Judge, but it did not mean that while exercising different jurisdictions, all proceedings before the same Civil Judge could be amalgamated—Presiding Officer, in the present case, was the same who was acting as a Rent Controller, and also the Civil Judge, but in one he was a persona designata and was exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction, whereas with regard to the other he was acting as a Civil Judge under the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Neither two jurisdictions nor the proceedings under two entirely different laws could be consolidated or amalgamated—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 1383 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Dr. ARIF HAYAT
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
S. 17—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Petition for ejectment of tenant—consolidation of eviction petition and civil suit—Application for consolidation of civil suit with eviction petition was dismissed—Validity—Apprehension of conflict findings existed in the cases pending between the parties on similar issues—Matters were at preliminary stage and same could be decided together by consolidation —No bar had been provided in relevant laws to proceed an eviction application by adopting procedure laid down under Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Civil court might not act as Rent Controller while proceeding with such a case—Trial in the eviction application was a sort of inquiry affording the parties an opportunity of hearing—Other procedure laid down in Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses and examining them on oath—Compelling the discovery and production of documents and other material evidence or issuing a commission for the examination of witnesses were powers already exercised by the civil court—If any other power was exercised while deciding eviction application for which no bar was provided by law then it would not make Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 redundant—Scope of such law was not deemed to be inadequate if civil suit was tried together with the eviction application—Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not tenable under the law which was set aside—Application for consolidation of cases was accepted—Trial Court was directed to proceed with all the cases after consolidation of cases and commence proceedings from the stage where the same were left—Revision was accepted in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2012 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NAEEM
Ss. 18, 14 & 17—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—consolidation of proceedings ongoing simultaneously before Rent Controller in an ejectment petition and civil court for enforcement of award under Ss.18, 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Scope—ejectment petition before the Rent Controller was in its final stage of adjudication, and the matter had also been referred to a panel arbitrators; whose award was filed before the civil court for enforcement—Petitioner had sought amalgamation of proceedings on the ground that the Presiding Officer before whom the petition for enforcement of award was filed was also incidentally the Rent Controller in the matter—Said application of the petitioner was’ dismissed—Validity—ejectment petition before Rent Controller was at concluding stage whereas the petition moved under Arbitration Act, 1940 before the civil court was at the initial stages—Proceedings under the ‘Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be taken up by the civil court while ejectment petition was to be decided by the Rent Controller who was a persona designate under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; as such, the two jurisdictions were entirely different—Pleadings, issues, evidence and other material in both the matters being different, ought to be decided independently and separately—Civil Judge could be assigned different jurisdictions, for example, as a Rent Controller or Family Judge, but it did not mean that while exercising different jurisdictions, all proceedings before the same Civil Judge could be amalgamated—Presiding Officer, in the present case, was the same who was acting as a Rent Controller, and also the Civil Judge, but in one he was a persona designata and was exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction, whereas with regard to the other he was acting as a Civil Judge under the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Neither two jurisdictions nor the proceedings under two entirely different laws could be consolidated or amalgamated—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
5 Comments
Gull Hassan Khan
23/10/2016
Yes, it can be consolidated.
No bar had been provided in relevant laws to proceed an eviction application by adopting procedure laid down under Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Gull Hassan Khan
23/10/2016
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 1383 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Dr. ARIF HAYAT
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
S. 17—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Petition for ejectment of tenant—consolidation of eviction petition and civil suit—Application for consolidation of civil suit with eviction petition was dismissed—Validity—Apprehension of conflict findings existed in the cases pending between the parties on similar issues—Matters were at preliminary stage and same could be decided together by consolidation —No bar had been provided in relevant laws to proceed an eviction application by adopting procedure laid down under Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Civil court might not act as Rent Controller while proceeding with such a case—Trial in the eviction application was a sort of inquiry affording the parties an opportunity of hearing—Other procedure laid down in Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses and examining them on oath—Compelling the discovery and production of documents and other material evidence or issuing a commission for the examination of witnesses were powers already exercised by the civil court—If any other power was exercised while deciding eviction application for which no bar was provided by law then it would not make Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 redundant—Scope of such law was not deemed to be inadequate if civil suit was tried together with the eviction application—Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not tenable under the law which was set aside—Application for consolidation of cases was accepted—Trial Court was directed to proceed with all the cases after consolidation of cases and commence proceedings from the stage where the same were left—Revision was accepted in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2012 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NAEEM
Ss. 18, 14 & 17—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—consolidation of proceedings ongoing simultaneously before Rent Controller in an ejectment petition and civil court for enforcement of award under Ss.18, 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Scope—ejectment petition before the Rent Controller was in its final stage of adjudication, and the matter had also been referred to a panel arbitrators; whose award was filed before the civil court for enforcement—Petitioner had sought amalgamation of proceedings on the ground that the Presiding Officer before whom the petition for enforcement of award was filed was also incidentally the Rent Controller in the matter—Said application of the petitioner was’ dismissed—Validity—ejectment petition before Rent Controller was at concluding stage whereas the petition moved under Arbitration Act, 1940 before the civil court was at the initial stages—Proceedings under the ‘Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be taken up by the civil court while ejectment petition was to be decided by the Rent Controller who was a persona designate under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; as such, the two jurisdictions were entirely different—Pleadings, issues, evidence and other material in both the matters being different, ought to be decided independently and separately—Civil Judge could be assigned different jurisdictions, for example, as a Rent Controller or Family Judge, but it did not mean that while exercising different jurisdictions, all proceedings before the same Civil Judge could be amalgamated—Presiding Officer, in the present case, was the same who was acting as a Rent Controller, and also the Civil Judge, but in one he was a persona designata and was exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction, whereas with regard to the other he was acting as a Civil Judge under the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Neither two jurisdictions nor the proceedings under two entirely different laws could be consolidated or amalgamated—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Gull Hassan Khan
23/10/2016
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 1383 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Dr. ARIF HAYAT
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
S. 17—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Petition for ejectment of tenant—consolidation of eviction petition and civil suit—Application for consolidation of civil suit with eviction petition was dismissed—Validity—Apprehension of conflict findings existed in the cases pending between the parties on similar issues—Matters were at preliminary stage and same could be decided together by consolidation —No bar had been provided in relevant laws to proceed an eviction application by adopting procedure laid down under Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Civil court might not act as Rent Controller while proceeding with such a case—Trial in the eviction application was a sort of inquiry affording the parties an opportunity of hearing—Other procedure laid down in Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses and examining them on oath—Compelling the discovery and production of documents and other material evidence or issuing a commission for the examination of witnesses were powers already exercised by the civil court—If any other power was exercised while deciding eviction application for which no bar was provided by law then it would not make Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 redundant—Scope of such law was not deemed to be inadequate if civil suit was tried together with the eviction application—Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not tenable under the law which was set aside—Application for consolidation of cases was accepted—Trial Court was directed to proceed with all the cases after consolidation of cases and commence proceedings from the stage where the same were left—Revision was accepted in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2012 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NAEEM
Ss. 18, 14 & 17—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—consolidation of proceedings ongoing simultaneously before Rent Controller in an ejectment petition and civil court for enforcement of award under Ss.18, 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Scope—ejectment petition before the Rent Controller was in its final stage of adjudication, and the matter had also been referred to a panel arbitrators; whose award was filed before the civil court for enforcement—Petitioner had sought amalgamation of proceedings on the ground that the Presiding Officer before whom the petition for enforcement of award was filed was also incidentally the Rent Controller in the matter—Said application of the petitioner was’ dismissed—Validity—ejectment petition before Rent Controller was at concluding stage whereas the petition moved under Arbitration Act, 1940 before the civil court was at the initial stages—Proceedings under the ‘Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be taken up by the civil court while ejectment petition was to be decided by the Rent Controller who was a persona designate under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; as such, the two jurisdictions were entirely different—Pleadings, issues, evidence and other material in both the matters being different, ought to be decided independently and separately—Civil Judge could be assigned different jurisdictions, for example, as a Rent Controller or Family Judge, but it did not mean that while exercising different jurisdictions, all proceedings before the same Civil Judge could be amalgamated—Presiding Officer, in the present case, was the same who was acting as a Rent Controller, and also the Civil Judge, but in one he was a persona designata and was exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction, whereas with regard to the other he was acting as a Civil Judge under the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Neither two jurisdictions nor the proceedings under two entirely different laws could be consolidated or amalgamated—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Gull Hassan Khan
23/10/2016
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 1383 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Dr. ARIF HAYAT
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
S. 17—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Petition for ejectment of tenant—consolidation of eviction petition and civil suit—Application for consolidation of civil suit with eviction petition was dismissed—Validity—Apprehension of conflict findings existed in the cases pending between the parties on similar issues—Matters were at preliminary stage and same could be decided together by consolidation —No bar had been provided in relevant laws to proceed an eviction application by adopting procedure laid down under Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Civil court might not act as Rent Controller while proceeding with such a case—Trial in the eviction application was a sort of inquiry affording the parties an opportunity of hearing—Other procedure laid down in Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses and examining them on oath—Compelling the discovery and production of documents and other material evidence or issuing a commission for the examination of witnesses were powers already exercised by the civil court—If any other power was exercised while deciding eviction application for which no bar was provided by law then it would not make Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 redundant—Scope of such law was not deemed to be inadequate if civil suit was tried together with the eviction application—Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not tenable under the law which was set aside—Application for consolidation of cases was accepted—Trial Court was directed to proceed with all the cases after consolidation of cases and commence proceedings from the stage where the same were left—Revision was accepted in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2012 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NAEEM
Ss. 18, 14 & 17—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—consolidation of proceedings ongoing simultaneously before Rent Controller in an ejectment petition and civil court for enforcement of award under Ss.18, 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Scope—ejectment petition before the Rent Controller was in its final stage of adjudication, and the matter had also been referred to a panel arbitrators; whose award was filed before the civil court for enforcement—Petitioner had sought amalgamation of proceedings on the ground that the Presiding Officer before whom the petition for enforcement of award was filed was also incidentally the Rent Controller in the matter—Said application of the petitioner was’ dismissed—Validity—ejectment petition before Rent Controller was at concluding stage whereas the petition moved under Arbitration Act, 1940 before the civil court was at the initial stages—Proceedings under the ‘Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be taken up by the civil court while ejectment petition was to be decided by the Rent Controller who was a persona designate under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; as such, the two jurisdictions were entirely different—Pleadings, issues, evidence and other material in both the matters being different, ought to be decided independently and separately—Civil Judge could be assigned different jurisdictions, for example, as a Rent Controller or Family Judge, but it did not mean that while exercising different jurisdictions, all proceedings before the same Civil Judge could be amalgamated—Presiding Officer, in the present case, was the same who was acting as a Rent Controller, and also the Civil Judge, but in one he was a persona designata and was exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction, whereas with regard to the other he was acting as a Civil Judge under the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Neither two jurisdictions nor the proceedings under two entirely different laws could be consolidated or amalgamated—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Gull Hassan Khan
23/10/2016
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 1383 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : Dr. ARIF HAYAT
Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD
S. 17—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Petition for ejectment of tenant—consolidation of eviction petition and civil suit—Application for consolidation of civil suit with eviction petition was dismissed—Validity—Apprehension of conflict findings existed in the cases pending between the parties on similar issues—Matters were at preliminary stage and same could be decided together by consolidation —No bar had been provided in relevant laws to proceed an eviction application by adopting procedure laid down under Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Civil court might not act as Rent Controller while proceeding with such a case—Trial in the eviction application was a sort of inquiry affording the parties an opportunity of hearing—Other procedure laid down in Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 was summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses and examining them on oath—Compelling the discovery and production of documents and other material evidence or issuing a commission for the examination of witnesses were powers already exercised by the civil court—If any other power was exercised while deciding eviction application for which no bar was provided by law then it would not make Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 redundant—Scope of such law was not deemed to be inadequate if civil suit was tried together with the eviction application—Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not tenable under the law which was set aside—Application for consolidation of cases was accepted—Trial Court was directed to proceed with all the cases after consolidation of cases and commence proceedings from the stage where the same were left—Revision was accepted in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2012 PLD 490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD NAEEM
Ss. 18, 14 & 17—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—consolidation of proceedings ongoing simultaneously before Rent Controller in an ejectment petition and civil court for enforcement of award under Ss.18, 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Scope—ejectment petition before the Rent Controller was in its final stage of adjudication, and the matter had also been referred to a panel arbitrators; whose award was filed before the civil court for enforcement—Petitioner had sought amalgamation of proceedings on the ground that the Presiding Officer before whom the petition for enforcement of award was filed was also incidentally the Rent Controller in the matter—Said application of the petitioner was’ dismissed—Validity—ejectment petition before Rent Controller was at concluding stage whereas the petition moved under Arbitration Act, 1940 before the civil court was at the initial stages—Proceedings under the ‘Arbitration Act, 1940 were to be taken up by the civil court while ejectment petition was to be decided by the Rent Controller who was a persona designate under the provisions of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; as such, the two jurisdictions were entirely different—Pleadings, issues, evidence and other material in both the matters being different, ought to be decided independently and separately—Civil Judge could be assigned different jurisdictions, for example, as a Rent Controller or Family Judge, but it did not mean that while exercising different jurisdictions, all proceedings before the same Civil Judge could be amalgamated—Presiding Officer, in the present case, was the same who was acting as a Rent Controller, and also the Civil Judge, but in one he was a persona designata and was exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction, whereas with regard to the other he was acting as a Civil Judge under the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Neither two jurisdictions nor the proceedings under two entirely different laws could be consolidated or amalgamated—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Write a comment: