' Brief facts, out of which this objection case is placed before us, are that the petitioner filed Constitutional Petition titled 'Pakistan Lawyer Forum (Registered), 18-Upper Mall Scheme, Lahore v.
Federation of Pakistan, through its Secretary, Ministry of Law and others.' The petitioner filed the said Constitutional petition with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in the light of the precedent case Sharaf Fareedi v.
Government of Sindh (PLD 1989 Karachi 404) and Government of Sindh v. Sharaf Fareedi (1994 SC 105), a high powered commission with judicial authority be set up to purge the Armed Forces of black sheep and recover the plundered .Money from the Generals. The commission should include Supreme Court Judges of unblemished reputation, President and Secretary General of Pakistan Bar Councils, leaders of opposition and leaders of parliamentary parties.
' It is also prayed that investigation be initiated against all those Generals who grabbed power from 1958 to 1999 be subjected to investigation and accountability in accordance with provisions of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and sections 27, 40, 42, 47 and 55 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
' It is further prayed that pending disposal of the main petition this learned Court be pleased to direct the respondents to restrain them from alienating their assets so as to avoid the process of accountability initiated against them."
2. The office raised the following objections on 2-8-2003:-- "37 No urgency.
38. Copy of registration of Pakistan Lawyers Forum not appended.
39. Writ petition not maintainable against Army Persons under Article 199(3).
40. Addresses of retired Army Officers have not been given."
' Counsel of the petitioner refiled the same on 1-9-2003, which was fixed before the learned Single Judge as objection case on 9-9-2003. The leaned Single Judge upheld the office objections vide order dated 9-9-2003.
3. The petitioner filed Review Petition against the order of the Single Judge. The office raised the objection at No.37 of the objection sheet, i.e. Review Petition is not maintainable/competent against administrative order. Petitioner's counsel refiled the same on 8-10-2003. The petition was again returned with the same objection. The petitioner again refiled the petition on 9-10-2003. The office repeated the said objection on 10-10-2003 in the following terms, i.e. "The case was fixed before Single Bench under rule 1 of Chapter 3-B of High Court Rules and Order, Vol. V. The order dated 9-9- 2003 was passed on administrative side therefore, Review Application is not competent."
' The office again repealled the aforesaid objection on 18-102003. Thereafter, the petitioner refiled the same with the prayer that the review petition be treated as Intra-Court Appeal by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mst. Parveen Aklltar (PLD 1996 Lah. 328) on 24-10-2003.
Thereafter the office raised objection that I.C.A. Is not competent in view of the law laid down in YLR 2002 Lahore 1487, on 25-10-2003. The petitioner refiled the same on 1-11-2003 with the prayer that the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1985 SCMR 362 (363). Office repeated the.
Same objection on 3-11-2003. Thereafter the petitioner refiled the same on 6-11-2003 and requested for its fixation on 18-12-2003. Finally the case was placed as objection case before the Division Bench on 9-6-2004, which was not taken up as one of us (Ch. Ljaz Ahmad, J.) had to sit in a Full Bench on 9-6-2004. The office has fixed the case as objection case today before us.
4. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the office has noauthority to keep the file in the office after removing the objection by the counsel of the petitioner. It is the duty and obligation of the office to fix the case before the Bench. He further submits that the office has raised the objection, which is not a routine objection therefore, the office has raised the objection malafidely.
He further urges that any order passed by a Judge of Superior Court in any capacity the said order is always termed as judicial order therefore the office objection is not in consonance with the High Court Rules, Procedure and the law laid down by the Superior Court and therefore, the review petition is maintainable before this Court against the impugned order dated 9-9-2003 passed by the Single Judge. In support of this contention he relies on the case reported as Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1. He further urges that the Single Judge erred in law to uphold the office objection, which is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Ex.-Lt. Col. Anwar Aziz (PA-7122) v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and 2 others (PLD 2001 SC 549) while InterpretingArticle 199(3) of the Constitution. In support of his contention he has relied on the following judgments:--
1. The State v. Muhammad Nazir and others (PLD 1991 Lahore 433).
2. Ch. Pervaiz Elahi v. Province of Punjab and another (PLD 1993 Lahore 595).
3. Ex.-Lt. Col. Anwar Aziz (PA-7122) v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and 2 others (PLD 2001 SC 549). -
4. Ch. Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1975 SC 66).
5. The Sate v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 1973 SC 49).
6. The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others (PLD 1974 SC 151).
7. Federation of Pakistan and another v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar (PLD 1989 SC 26).
8. Sye& Zafar Ali Shah and others v. General Pervez Musharraf Chief Executive of Pakistan and others (PLD 2000 SC 869).
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question of law has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as Employees Management Group, Pak-Saudi Fertilizers Limited through Authorized Representative v. Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Privatization (Privatization Commission), Pak, Secretariat, Islamabad and others (2002 YLR 1487 Lahore). The relevant observation is as follows:--
4. We have considered the contention of the learned counsel for theappellant and perused the record ourselves. We are of the view that the, appeal is not competent as the learned Single Judge has not exercised his original civil jurisdiction at the time of passing the impugned order. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Begum D.F. Hassan v. Habib Bank Ltd. Lahore (PLD 1974 Lahore 117). The relevant observation is reproduced here under:-- "Furthermore, under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 3 an appeal is competent against an order passed by Single Judge in exercise of this Court's original civil jurisdiction. Even if the appellant's argument was to be accepted that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court while dealing with Constitutional petitions is an original jurisdiction, the jurisdiction exercised shall at best be its 'special original jurisdiction' and not its 'original civil jurisdiction' as observed by the Supreme Court while considering the nature of this Court's jurisdiction the nature of this Court's jurisdiction qua writ petitions dealt with in this Court. As appeals under the Ordinance and the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 are competent only if they fall within the terms of the provisions of section
3. The present appeal must be held to be incompetent as it is not covered in terms, either by the prOvisions of subsection (1) or by subsection (2) of the above enactments."
It is also settled principle of law that the Constitutional jurisdiction through original jurisdiction is distinct from the civil jurisdiction as observed by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Ahmad Khan v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, West Pakistan, through the Registrar High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1968 Supreme Court 171). The jurisdiction must obviously be described in Constitutional jurisdiction of an original kind, therefore, IntraCourt appeal is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Khushi and others v. Agha Hassan Raza (1990 ALD 207(1)). These proceedings are not akin the original nature of proceedings referred in section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. It is not conceivable that anyorder passed by this Court on the office objection would be an order in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction amenable to I.C.A., therefore, this appeal is incompetent and the same is dismissed."
' In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reported as Mst. Perveen Akhtar v. Director, FIA, Lahore (PLD 1996 Lahore 328), the question of maintainability was not raised and not decided, therefore, Mst. Perveen's case (supra) is not attracted in the given circumstances.
The office has raised objection in a petition filed by Muhammad Riaz Bhatti under the High Court Rules and Order Vol. V, Chapter 1-A. Rule 9, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court vide order dated 25-4-2002. Muhammad Riaz Bhatti being aggrieved filed a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed, which is reported as Muhammad Riaz Bhatti v.
Federation of Pakistan and others (2004 SCMR 1120).
' In view of what has been discussed above, neither the review petition nor the Intra-Court appeal is maintainable In view of the aforesaid circumstances. Therefore, the office objection is upheld.
Office objection upheld.