Find a Lawyer

First Appeal from Order No. 7-A of 1977, decided on 7th October 1978.

-- S. 15(1), (4) read with Ss. 4, 10 12 & 13-Appeal-Right of appeal creation of statute-Right of appeal having been specifically restricted in Ordinance to orders made under Ss. 4, 10, 12 & 13 -Rent Con troller's order refusing to restore rent control proceedings consigned to record room sine die till decision of civil suit between parties, held, not appeable to High Court.

Haji Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Ali Siraj P L D 1964 Lab. 15 ; Muhammad Sulaiman v. Azizuddin and another P L D 1971 Kar. 1 and Abdul Salam v. Sharif Ahmed and another 1971 S C M R 596 ref.

Muhammad Latif for Appellant.

Fazal Elahi Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 7th October 1978.

Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of the learned Rent Controller to restore the rent control proceedings which were consigned to the record room sine die till the decision of a civil suit between the parties Mst. Ghulam Fatima has moved the present appeal. The order of the Rent Controller is dated 31-5-1977.

2. The appeal was admitted by a. learned Judge of this Court when his attention was invited to Haji Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Ali Siraj (P L D 1964 Lab. 15) but a preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal does not lie. The learned counsel for the respon dent relies heavily on Muhammad Sulaiman v. Azizuddin and another (P L D 1971 Kar. 1) and Abdul Salam v. Shari( Ahmad and another (1971 S C M R 596).

3. I have gone through the authorities produced by both the sides and have carefully perused subsections (1) and (4) of section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and am clearly of the view that the preliminary objection must prevail for right of appeal is the creation of a statute and the statute in this case has specifically restricted the right of A appeal to orders made under sections 4, 10, 12 and 13 ibid. It is true that there are words "or class of cases" in subsection (4) but it will be futile to argue that these words will give right of appeal in such cases as well which have not been specifically provided for in. subsection (1) which provides for an appeal. It will be something strange that though in all-important matters appeal should lie to the District Judge but trivialities should be assailable by appeal before the High Court. Anyhow the matter stands concluded by the) authority of the Supreme Court as in 1971 S C M R 596.

4. The preliminary objection prevails. The appeal is incompetent and is dismissed as such with costs.

S. A. H. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.