Law: Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972

Section: 3(2)

 Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) S. 3(2), proviso---Intra Court Appeal---Maintainability---Principle---Objection was raised by respondents on maintainability of Intra Court Appeal against order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court---Validity---If original statute governing dispute already gives a remedy of appeal, revision or review and despite that remedy a Constitutional petition was filed then the order of Judge in Chambers of High Court in such Constitutional petition cannot be further appealed before Division Bench of High Court---Object of proviso to S.3 (2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is to prevent a second layer of appeal within High Court where the statute itself already provides an appellate or revisional remedy---Such provision discourages bypassing statutory forms and prevents multiplication of proceedings---In the present case one of the essential preconditions for attracting the bar was missing, namely that the law applicable provided at least one appeal, revision or review against original order---General rule under S.3 (2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 remained operative and Intra Court Appeal was maintainable---Objection was overruled in circumstances.               Azmat Bashir Tarar, learned Assistant Attorney General.                                                                                                         Order        Khadim Hussain Soomro, J.---Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant Intra Court appeal on the premise that the appellant had earlier filed a representation, placed on the record, which was dismissed, therefore the present intra court appeal is barred. The counsel relied upon the 2020 CLD 1462, 2018 PLC (C.S), 2020 CLD 1462, 2003 PLC (C.S) 414. 2.    Conversely, learned…