' In a suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner an application for the grant of temporary injunction was filed which was disposed of by the learned trial Court on 18-10-2004 in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter an application was filed by the defendant for direction to the Patwari Halqa to supply him the copy of the "Fard". On that application order dated 13-12-2004 was passed which contained a warning that he will be careful in future while performing his official duties. This order was assailed by the petitioner through a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot on 5-3-2005 observing "a revision petition, is maintainable only when a Court exercises, its judicial powers but in the instant case, the learned trial Court has passed an administrative/executive order which is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court". This is writ petition qua the same.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. The case of the petitioner is that since the Patwari was not party to the suit, neither any such application could be entertained nor order dated 13-12-2004 could be passed. It is contended that assumption of jurisdiction on any such application was unwarranted. It is stated by the learned counsel for respondent No,1 that after the order of the trial Court. Dated 13-12-2004, the grievance of his client as to issuance of "Fard" was redressed. It is, however, contended by him that the trial Court could issue such a direction in exercise of its inherent powers under section 151, C.P.C.
4. So far as the grievance of the respondent qua the non-issuance of "Fard" was concerned, the same stand redressed as the "Fard" had been issued pursuant to the order, dated 13-12-2004. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no such power and jurisdiction available to the trial Court to pass such an administrative or executive order has substance. The revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot that the same was not maintainable against such an executive order. Suffice it to observe that every power exercisable by the Court flows from the law applicable. Section 151, C.P.C. i,e, the inherit powers of the Court, only recognizes such power of the Court as exists under the law. It appears that while passing the order, dated 13-12-2004, the trial Court was not conscious of this aspect and issued the direction which had no backing of the contemporaneous law. In the garb of inherent powers the subordinate Courts cannot be let loose to pass any order or to do anything, which may not even be permissible by the law or contemplated by the law. The trial Court while passing order, dated 13-12- 2004 did not act in conformity with law. The proper course would have been to direct the respondent-defendant, to approach the higher Revenue Authorities in the hierarchy qua the conduct of the Patwari. It may be observed that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan had long ago observed in Malik Firoz Khan Noon v. The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 333 that the duty of the Judge "is to adjudicate on the right or liability, the question of the existence or non-existence of which is raised before him, and this function he must discharge according to law and not according to what in his opinion the interests of the country or the State demand" and that "it is not the duty of the Judge to lay down moral standards". It has repeatedly been emphasized by the superior Courts that "a Judge ought not to make any disparaging remarks against a person who is neither a party nor a witness in the case". The observations of the learned trial Judge made in his order, dated 13-12-2004 qua the conduct of the Patwari who was not even party before him in the suit that "He was also warned and stated that he will be careful in future and will not create misery to public at large while putting the gun at the shoulder of the Court" was neither called for nor warranted. He should have exercised restraint in making such remarks. The order being not sustainable in law is declared as of no legal effect.
' The petition is accepted accordingly with the above observations. No order as to costs.