Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions Nos. 421, 422 and 423 of 1981, decided on 10th October, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 20‑1‑1981 of the Lahore High Court in I.‑C.A. Nos. 706, 707 and 708 of 1980).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3) & 199‑‑Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , O. XLV II , R.7‑‑Dismissal of Intra‑Court appeal against order of Single Judge rejecting application for review of order passed in writ petition‑‑Order impugned‑‑No Intra‑Court appeal, held, was competent against order whereby review application was dismissed‑‑Impugned order being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.

Muhammad Ahmad Hassan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in all petitions).

Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petitions Nos. 421 and 423 of 1981).

Sher Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in Civil Petition No. 422 of 1981).

Date of hearing: 10th October, 1981.

This order will govern Civil Petition No. 421 of 1981, Civil Petition No. 422 of 1981 and Civil Petition No. 423 of 1981, as they are directed against a common order passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby the Intra‑Court appeals filed by the petitioner in three. Cases were dismissed.

Intra‑Court Appeal No. 706 of 1980, filed by the petitioner was directed against Mst. Fahmeeda Khatoon which has given rise to Civil Petition No. 421 of 1981. Intra‑Court Appeal No. 707 of 1980 was filed against Muhammad Hafeez, out of which Civil Petition No. 422 of 1981 has arisen, while Intra‑Court Appeal No. 708 of 1980 was filed against Bagga, out of which Civil Petition No. 423 of 1980 has arisen.

The respondent in three petitions had filed writ petitions in the Lahore High Court (Writ Petition No. 3349/77 was filed by Fahmeeda Khatoon; W.P. 3807/77, was filed by Muhammad Hafeez; W.P. 3349/77 was filed by Bagga) to challenge the Labour Department Authority refusing to exempt a part of the land which according to them, was allotted in their favour and stood included in a Scheme framed by the petitioner L.D.A. The claim of the respondents was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the allotment claimed by them was of urban agricultural land within the red line area. However, it was unable to produce the relevant notification containing the decision of the Rehabilitation authorities to support their assertion and negatived the claim of the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petitions were accepted and the cases remanded to the petitioner L.D.A. with the direction to dispose them again in accordance with law. The order in the said writ petitions was passed on 28‑4‑1980.

The petitioner L.D.A. filed time‑barred review petition in each case. The delay in filing the said review petitions was sought to be explained on the ground that the time had been spent in tracing out the necessary notification which was to be produced in support of the contention of the petitioner and it was prayed that this notification may be taken into account and the earlier decision be reviewed. The review petitions were, however, dismissed on 24‑11‑1980.

The petitioner thereafter, filed three Intra‑Court Appeals, details of which have been given above. These were, however, dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to question the allotment made in favour of the respondents, who were claimant displaced persons and that under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the allotments in their favour had become final and they were now absolute owners by operation of law. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.

The petitions are liable to be dismissed on the short ground that no appeal was competent against the order refusing to review the order passed in the writ petitions. As already stated, the writ petition filed by the respondents were accepted and orders were passed in their favour. These orders were challenged by time‑barred review petition and the only ground given in excuse of the delay was that the necessary notification was not available and the review petitions had been filed after the relevant notification had become available. No date was given as to when the notification became available and how much time was spent in tracing it out nor any explanation was given to explain each day's delay in filing the review application, after the relevant notification had become available. The review applications were, therefore, rightly dismissed. Under Order XXXVII, Rule 7, C.P.C. and order of the Court rejecting an application for review is not appealable. Consequently, no I.‑C.A. was competent against the order, dated 24‑11‑1980, whereby the review applications were dismissed. The Intra‑Court Appeals were liable to be dismissed on the short ground.

It needs to be mentioned that although in the heading of each Intra‑Court Appeal it is stated that the appeal is directed against the original order, dated 28‑4‑1980 passed in the writ petition but the text of the memorandum of appeal early shows that it is directed against the order refusing to review the said order. Even if each appeal is taken to be directed against order passed in writ petition, dated 28‑4‑1980 the same was liable to be dismissed on the short ground of limitation.

These petitions must, therefore, fail and are dismissed hereby.

M. I. Petitions 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.