MEHMOOD AHMED vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another
This constitutional petition was directed against an interim order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, which dismissed the petitioner's application for permission to cross-examine a respondent's witness after multiple delays. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller in light of the statutory bar against appeals under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, and the validity of proceedings conducted by a Rent Controller whose qualifications were challenged for the first time in the constitutional petition. The Sindh High Court held that the constitutional petition was not maintainable against an interim order of the Rent Controller as it would defeat the legislative intent and purpose of section 21 of the Ordinance, and that objections regarding the qualifications of the Rent Controller cannot be raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction without having been raised before the Controller. The key principle laid down is that constitutional petitions are barred against interlocutory orders in rent proceedings, and procedural or jurisdictional objections not raised before the lower forum cannot be entertained for the first time.
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interim order passed by a Rent Controller?
- Whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory order under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance?
- Can an objection regarding the qualifications of a Rent Controller be raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction without being raised before the Controller?
- Section 21, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 4(2), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' This Constitution petition is directed against an order, dated 3-11-1996 passed by the Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (South), whereby he dismissed petitioner's application for permission to cross-examine the respondent No, 1 's witness. It appears that the affidavit-in- evidence of respondents' witness was filed on 28-9-1992 and since then the cross-examination of the witness continued to be put off till 22-1-1996 when the Controller closed the cross-examination.
2. Prior to this, on an earlier occasion too the cross-examination of the same witness had been closed but at that time it was reopened with the consent of the respondent No,l's counsel.
3. Indisputably the impugned order is in the nature of an interim order passed on an interlocutory application filed on behalf of the petitioner, whereas under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance appeal is provided only from order which is not an interim order. Obviously, it is in view of the bar contained in section 21 of the Ordinance that the petitioner did not file appeal against the impugned order but has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In a number of cases it has been held that no Constitution petition is maintainable against an interim order of the Rent Controller, the reason being that if Constitution petitions were to be entertained the very purpose of section 21 of the Ordinance would be defeated. The petitioner will have opportunity to file appeal if the final order goes against him and then he can raise this ground too.
4. In the present case apart from challenging the order of the Controller refusing to allow the cross- examination of the respondent No, 1 's witness, the rent proceedings before the Rent Controller are also attacked on the ground that the Rent Controller does not possess the requisite qualification of three years' experience as a Civil Judge or First Class Magistrate as provided under section 4(2) of the Ordinance and, therefore, cannot function as a Rent Controller. However, admittedly no such objection was ever taken by the petitioner before the Rent Controller at any stage, which he should have done before raising it in this petition.
5. ' For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition which we dismiss in limine.
2. In view of the above order, this application has become infructuous and is dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- Waseem Khan vs Asim Hussain and 5 others 2020 YLR 1886
- Shaikh SULTAN AHMED vs IFTIKHARUDDIN PARACHA and 2 others 2016 MLD 806
- MUHAMMAD SAEED SHAH vs Mst. PHILPANA and another 2012 MLD 783
- TAYYAB ALI, ALI BHAI KARIM JEE WAQF through Managing Trustee vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL through L.Rs, and 2 others 2009 YLR 1178
- Mrs. Syeda TAHIRA MUBASHAR vs Mst. ZAKIA KHAN and another 2007 CLC 1961