ORDER MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.-- The petitioner who was respondent before the learned Rent Controller and against whom an ejectment order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 14.02,2006 for noncompliance of order passed by the said Court under section 13 (6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, is now aggrieved of the order dated 17.03.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby the said learned Additional District Judge while admitting the petitioner's appeal (against the ejectment order) for regular hearing, directed him to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs.
8000/- per month from December, 2003 till March, 2006 and further directed him to keep on depositing future rent at the rate of Rs. 8000/- before 15th of each succeeding month.
2. The facts in brief are that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller, Lahore. As the petitioner failed to file reply to the said ejectment petition, his right to file the same was struck of on 22.12.2003. His application seeking setting aside of the said order was also dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 19.07.2005. The petitioner challenged both the above-mentioned order by way of filing W.P:Nos.11077/2005 but the same was also dismissed by this Court on 21.6.2005 with the following observations:- "Despite that the petitioner is not wit. Rout remedy, as he has got an adequate remedy available to him by challenging the impugned orders in appeal, which, he may file against the ultimate order/judgment if the same would be -passed against the petitioner. The petition is also hit by Article 199(1) of the Constitution, hence cannot be entertained.
Upshot of the above discussion is that the present petition is incompetent and not maintainable, hence dismissed in limine."
In the above-mentioned background the final ejectment order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 14.02.20.06 against the petitioner. Against the said order of ejectment, the petitioner filed first appeal which came up for limine hearing before learned Additional District, Judge, Lahore on 17.3.2006 when the said learned Additional District Judge admitted the same for regular hearing and besides issuing notices to the respondents also issued the above-mentioned impugned direction through the same order. The petitioner through this Constitutional petition seeks the quashment of the said direction on the ground that there was no justification for the learned Additional District Judge to have issued the said direction; even otherwise, the impugned direction is harsh amounting to 'depriving the petitioner of his right of appeal.
4. When asked as to how this Constitutional petition against the impugned direction is maintainable in view of the earlier decision of this Court dated 21.06.2005 passed in W.P. No. 11077/2005 dismissing the said writ petition holding:- "when the legislature had specifically prohibited the filing of appeal against the interim order and if the Constitutional petition was allowed to be filed against such order it would amount to defeating and diverting the intent of the legislature." and the learned Judge while holding so placed reliance on the case "Syed Saghir Ahmed Naqvi Versus Province of Sindh through Secretary S&GAD Karachi, etc." (1996 SCM R 1165). The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court that this writ petition which too has been filed against an interim order passed by learned Additional District Judge is maintainable. Resultantly, this writ petition has got no force and the same is dismissed in limine.