1. ' Assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No.1 has been assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 on the ground that respondent No.1 possessed no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal against order dated 8-11-1993 which was an order pursuant to the judgments and orders passed by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan or initiate proceedings.
2. ' Respondents Nos.2 to 14 are not represented despite the fact that the name of their learned counsel duly appears in the cause list. The petition thus has been heard ex parte.
3. ' Briefly stated, the circumstances in which this petition has been filed are that one Chand Khan was allotted evacuee agricultural land in lieu of his claim in excess of his entitlement. On a 'mukhbari' application by Ahmad Ali, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, excess land was cancelled on 29-11-1989. The matter was assailed by the respondents through (W.P. No.78-R/90 and W.P. No.79-R/90) claiming themselves to be purchasers which petitions were dismissed by a common judgment dated 15-11-1992. W.P. No. 64-R/90 filed by Ahmad Ali was accepted on the same date. They assailed the matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through C.P.L.A. No.1150- L of 1992 and 1151-L of 1992 which were dismissed on 11-4-1993 observing that "The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any provision in the Settlement Law or the Scheme to the effect that a purchaser who is found to have obtained excess allotment of land has better right to purchase the excess land qua the informer".
4. There is a force and substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the matter had been concluded up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, there was no scope left for the respondents to agitate the same de novo and that their application was rightly dismissed on 8-11-1993. There was no occasion for any appeal against order dated 29-11-1989 which stood upheld by this Court vide A judgment dated 15-11-1992 and order dated 8-11-1993 was merely a recognition thereof. Needless to observe that appeal does not lie before any forum as a matter of routine, but is a right, creation of the statute. Unless so conferred, such remedy of appeal cannot be availed by any one. Reference in this context may be made to Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1970 SC 1), Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shall (PLD 1981 SC 94) and Irshad Imran Sulehri v. Election Tribunal and others (PLD 1998 Lah.
252. It may be observed that respondent No.1 in entertaining the appeal has assumed jurisdiction not vested in it by law. In Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution v. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Taj and another (PLD 1975 SC 450) it was held that "These defects of jurisdiction are apparent on the face of the record which in my opinion would at once attract certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court. I have not the slightest doubt that if respondent No.2 proceeds to hear the complaint of respondent No.1.
5. The proceedings will be wholly without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity". Respondent No.1 has no such appellate jurisdiction in the matter. Thus assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. I in the matter cannot but, be held to be unwarranted by law and a nullity.
6. ' In view of the above, this petition is accepted. No order as to costs.