Mst. SHANZEY KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ASIM Syed Mumtaz Ali Shah Hamdai

ORDER

This intra Court appeal filed under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 seeks to challenge order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber.

2. The appellant filed the writ petition for calling into question orders passed by the guardian judge in a petition filed by respondent No.1 under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the Act).

3. In view of the availability of the remedy of appeal under the Act, this Intra Court Appeal is not maintainable. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment reported as Mst. Kareem Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another PLD 1984 SC 344 in which while construing the import of the proviso to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, it was held as follows:

The test laid down by the Legislature in the proviso is that if the law applicable to the proceedings from which the Constitutional Petition arises provides for at least one appeal against the original order, then no appeal would be competent from the order of a Single Judge in the constitutional jurisdiction to a Bench of two or more Judges of the High Court. The crucial words are the "Original Order". It is clear from the wording of the proviso that the requirement of the availability of an appeal in the law applicable is not in relation to the impugned order in the constitutional petition, which may be the order passed by the lowest officer or authority in the hierarchy or an order passed by higher authorities in appeal, revision or review, if any, provided in the relevant statute. Therefore, the relevant order may not necessarily be the one which is under challenge but the test is whether the original order passed in the proceedings is subject to an appeal under the relevant law, irrespective of the fact whether the remedy of appeal so provided was availed of or not. Apparently the meaning of the expression "original order" is the order with which the proceedings under the relevant statute commenced. The word "proceedings" has been used in different enactments and has been subject to judicial interpretation in a number of cases wherein it has received either restricted or wide meaning according to the text and subject-matter of the particular statute.

The term 'proceedings' is a very comprehensive term, and, generally speaking, means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right, and hence it necessarily embraces the requisite steps by which judicial action is invoked. A 'proceeding' would include every step taken towards the further progress of a cause in Court or before a Tribunal, where it may be pending. It is the step towards the objective to be achieved, say for instance the judgment in a pending suit. The proceeding commences with the first step by which the machinery of the law is put into motion in order to take cognizance of the case. It is indeed comprehensive expression and includes all possible steps in the action under the law, from its commencement to the execution of the judgment.

4. This Intra Court appeal being not maintainable is accordingly dismissed.

SA/S-15/L Appeal dismissed.