GHAFFAR HUSSAIN vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHIWAL and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the withdrawal of permission for the petitioner to operate a Halting Station and Parking Place. The petitioner challenged this withdrawal in a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. During these proceedings, a third party (respondent No. 3) successfully filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be impleaded as a party, citing business hardship. The petitioner's subsequent Intra-Court Appeal against this interim order was dismissed by the High Court on the grounds of non-maintainability. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this dismissal, affirming that under Section 3(1) of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act 1972, an Intra-Court Appeal only lies against a decree or final order passed by a Single Judge in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction, not against interim orders in constitutional petitions. Furthermore, the Court reiterated its established practice of declining interference in interim orders absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal competent against an interim order passed by a Single Judge during the hearing of a Constitution petition?
- Does an Intra-Court Appeal lie against an order allowing an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Under what circumstances does an appeal lie to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court under the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act 1972?
- Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 3(1), Law Reforms (Amendment) Act 1972
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal No,380-L of 1995 arises from the facts that Ghaffar Hussain petitioner with the prior permission of District Magistrate, Sahiwal, respondent No,1, established Halting Station and Parking Place in his premises in front of Al-Fateh Travel Service, Multan Road, Sahiwal. The permission was subsequently withdrawn by respondent No,1 on 22-11-1993. The petitioner filed Writ Petition in Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, questioning the legality o' the order dated 22-11-1993 of the District Magistrate, against respondent No,1 and Secretary, Road Transport, Multan Division, Multan respondent No,2 which is still pending.
2. On 28-5-1994, Ch. Sultan Mahtnood, respondent No,3 filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. For impleading him as a party in the Writ Petition on the ground that he was facing great financial loss in his business and hardship in the running of his Petrol Pump on account of establishment of Halting point and Parking place of the petitioner. This application was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 12-2-1995. The petitioner was directed to amend the Writ Petition and implead the applicant (Ch. Sultan Mahmood) as a party in the Writ Petition.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Intra-Court Appeal which was dismissed vide impugned order on the short ground of non-maintainability. The High Court was of the view that Intra-Court Appeal was not competent against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge during the hearing of a Constitution petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Bashir A. Mujahid, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that in view of the provisions of section 3(1) of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act VIII of 1972), the Division Bench of the High Court was fully justified in holding the Intra-Court Appeal of the petitioner as not maintainable. Relevant provision i,e, section 3(1) reads as follows:- "An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from a decree passed or final order made by a Single Judge of that Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction."
4. Learned Single Judge has simply allowed the application of respondent No,3 for impleading him as a party in the writ petition. The main writ petition is still pending. The well settled practice of this Court is not to interfere in interim orders unless exceptional ground exists necessitating interference in the interest of justice which is non-existent in this case.
5. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.