Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 3034 = 1980 SLD 3034 = 1980 SCMR 294
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 168-R of 1979, decided on 2nd October, 1979. (On appeal from the judgment and order dated 11-6-79 of Lahore High Court at Lahore in Writ Petition No. 118/77).
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain P L D 1975 S C 457 rel. Syed Riaz Ahmed Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and Yaqub Hussain Zaidi, AdvocateonRecord for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent.

RIAZ KHALIL AND OTHERS -Petitioners

VERSUS

Sh. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ -Respondent

Law: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Section: 17(8), 24

Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 13, 15

(a) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)  Ss. 17 (8) & 24 and West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 15AppealVariations in language of provisions for appeal in two lawsHeld, of no material con sequence[Interpretation of statutesAppeal (civil)]. Differences in two laws, in so far as question of appeal is involved, are of no material consequence. It all depends upon nature of order. If it is of provisional character and does not decide main dispute involved in lis an interlocutory order might not be treated as appeal able unless made so by a specific provision of relevant law. Some of principles enunciated in this behalf from time to time are; (a) When preliminary, incidental, ancillary or collateral points are taken to appeal and other higher forums for correction at interlocutory stages leaving the main controversy in litigation undecided, it is likely to result in fragmentary adjudication which besides being most "inconvenient" tends "to delay the administration of justice". An inordinate delay itself has often been termed as negation of justice ; , (b) The mere fact that an interlocutory order on a preliminary issue goes to the "root of the case" would not always be the subjectmatter of appeal ; for example when a civil Court decides a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction in favour of plaintiff, no appeal lies against finding. Same would be position qua other laws unless on the wording of the relevant law it is found that a right of appeal is clearly granted. It is so notwithstanding importance of decision and "its going to the root of the matter"; (c) These considerations would be attracted more pronouncedly when an order is not only interlocutory an' incidental or collateral, but is also of provisional character, visavis the main controversy (as in the instant case in question of ejectment on stated grounds there for), or qua an ancillary question. for example the deposit of rent during proceedings of ejectment ; (d) If, as pointed out in the foregoing, an appeal or for that matter an approach to the higher forum against an order, the type of which is under…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register