Case Details

Citation(s)
1997 SLG 1235 1997 SLD 1235 = 1997 PLD 64
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No.968 of 1995, decided on 27th October, 1996.
Presented By: Before Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Nawaz Khan Ghandapur, JJ
Ala-ud-Din Khan for Petitioner. Talaut Anjum Qureshi and Imtiaz Ali for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 6.

-------ZAR-FROOSH---Petitioner

VERSUS

SIKANDAR AZIZ and 5 others---Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 3 , 17 , 24

  Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)-- ----Ss. 3, 17 & 24---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Interim order of Rent Controller rejecting petitioner's (tenant's) application under S.3(4), Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 to the effect that property in question, belonged to Cantonment Board who had allocated same to landlord (respondent) on temporary ground rent basis for period of one year, which had already expired, therefore, Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed and adjudicate eviction application---Such interim order challenged in Constitutional petition---Competence---Appeal against interim order was barred under S.24 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 which clearly indicated that there was ouster clause specifically barring appeal against interim order of Rent Controller as only final order was amenable to appeal---Impugned order being interim order was not appealable. Abdur Rehman v. Haji Mir Ahmad Khan and another PLD 1983 SC 21; 1989 SCMR 1892 and Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary S&GAD, Karachi and another 1996 SCMR 1165 rel. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Interim order was not appealable under relevant law---Effect---Held, where law itself had not given right of appeal against certain orders, then same could not be challenged in any other form to gain similar object which had been barred by statute itself---Remedy which was not directly available could not be sought indirectly through indirect means---Legislature having itself kept out interlocutory /interim orders from scope of appeal, the same could not be brought under attack through any other device in disguised manner before High Court---In view of specific ouster and bar of appeal against interim orders under the statute itself, same could not be allowed to be assailed in Constitutional jurisdiction in violation of express provision of special law ---Constitutional petition was thus, not maintainable. Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)--- ----S. 17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114---Constitution of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register