ABDULLAH KHAN Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND RENT CONTROLLER VITH WEST KARACHI Usman Ghani Rashid , Syed Shoaib Ahmad Bukhari

1. AJMAL MIAN, CJ. ‑ ‑The above petition is directed against the orders dated 29‑4‑1986 and 10‑5‑1986, passed by the learned Vtth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (West) Karachi, whereby, by former order he closed the cross- examination of respondent 2/ applicant in the rent case without its conclusion by the learned counsel for the petitioner/the opponent in Rent Case No.980/1985, and by the latter order, he dismissed the petitioner's application for recalling the above order, on the ground that the case was of 1981, and it was fixed for cross -examination of respondent 2 but neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above two orders, has filed the present petition.

2. In support of the above petition, Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the case was transferred from the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller West to the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller West, and that 29‑4‑1986 was the first date of hearing before the above Court after the transfer, and he has further submitted that the learned Rent Controller was not justified in closing the cross- examination of respondent No.2 at any early hours in the morning. It has been further urged that in the supporting affidavit to the above application for re opening of the said, it was averred by Mr. Tabassum Aftab Alvi that he had attended the above case early in the morning, but neither respondent 2 nor his counsel was present, and therefore, he went to attend some other cases and when he returned he was informed that respondent 2's cross‑examination was closed.

3. 1n our view, it was within the discretion of the learned Rent Controller to have closed the cross‑examination in the absence of the petitioner and his learned counsel on the above date of hearing, keeping in view that the case was of 1981, A and according to the diary‑sheet in the previous Court, a number of dates were obtained by the petitioner or his counsel. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant any relief in the above petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

4. M.Y.H./A‑632/K Petition dismissed.