Yamin, the appellant of the instant Intra-Court Appeal is aggrieved from a judgment dated 12.7.2004 passed by our learned brother Mr. Justice Muhammad Khalid Alvi in Writ Petition No. 45-R of 1994 (Mst. Jajan vs. Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) /Notified Officer, Mailsi, District Vehari).
2. The facts have been exhaustively dealt with by the learned Single Judge in Chambers in the impugned judgment, so those need not be reiterated and re-produced in this Intra-Court Appeal especially because of preliminary objection_ having been raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this Intl-a-Court Appeal by stating that the original order dated 3.5.1967 passed upon "Mukhbari" application filed under Section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958 was appealable, against which order appeal was also filed before the Settlement Commissioner, which was accepted on 14.3.1970. By that appellate order, the case was remanded, which afterward was concluded finally by the impugned order dated 38.11.1994 passed by a Notified Officer. As the original order dated 3.5.1967, was appealable against the allotment of Jalal, so the proceedings commenced from the that order culminating through order dated 28.11.1994, by the order of Notified Officer, cannot be assailed in Intra-Court Appeal. To support his contention, he has referred to, PLD 1984 Supreme Court 344 (Mst. Karim Bibi and others vs. Hussain Bakhsh and another), 1998 SCM R 13 (Bassi vs. Qasim All and others), 2000 SCM R 989 (Mst. Wazir Begum and others vs. Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner and others). He has also cited PLD 2003 Supreme Court 235 (Basal vs. Qaim Ali and 8 others).
3. On the hand, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2003 SCM R 325 (Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh vs. Gul Muhammad Hajano) by stating that the order dated 28.4.1994 passed by Notified Officer/AC., Mailsi has to be treated as an original order, therefore, appeal should be held maintainable and competently filed.
5. After considering the arguments of both the learned counsel and from the perusal of the record, we have noted an important distinction with has to be kept in mind, while holding the Intra-Court Appeal to be maintainable or not. There are two kind to cases and situations. One is of the cases in which a 'Makhabri' application was filed in such period when original order of allotment was not appealable. The other category of cases is of those cases where original , order of allotment was subject to the incidence of appeal, revision/review. The order dated 3.5.1967 passed against Jalal, the original allottee was appealable and the appeal was actually filed against that allotment order and on order of cancellation dated 3.5.1967 was obtained, against which appeal was filed before the learned Settlement Commissioner (Land) Multan, which was accepted on 14.3.1970 and the case was remanded to Assistant Commissioner, Mailsi with the powers of DSC (Land). So, in the above noted proceedings, the appeal was provided by Section 19 of the Land Settlement Act, 1958 against the original order which was also availed of. Therefore, the remedy of Intra-Court Appeal cannot be sought for. In fact, the wisdom for providing Intra-curt Appeal against an order passed in writ jurisdiction is for bringing another finding from a second Court so that no wrong/mistake/error/omission should remain in the field and the parties be given full opportunity of Courts. As the appeal is the first remedy provided to a party, therefore, after the second remedy of writ, seeking a third finding/judgment through lntra-Court Appeal has been closed by the legislature in its wisdom.
Therefore, power of Intra-Court Appeal cannot be exercised in case where a remedy of appeal /revision/review/representation was available against the original order. So, by holding this Intra- Court Appeal not maintainable, we dismiss the same, with no order as to costs. .