1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Civil Petition No, 1268 of 2009 calls in question judgment dated 30-6-2009 passed by learned High Court of Sindh , Karachi in HCA No, 201 of 2009, operative part whereof is reproduced herein below:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that no right, title or interest has been created in the land in favour of the appellant. All that the appellant claim is that he invested an amount of Rs, 7 million of the construction of the club building is to be adjusted from the income of marriage lawns. The club had no authority to lease out the land for commercial purposes. The appellant has not claimed any damages in the suit. Subject to proof he at best had the right to claim damages only. The appellant is free to take any appropriate action for recovery of his amount, if so advised. So far as the impugned judgment is concerned, no legal infirmity has been pointed out in it. In the circumstances the appeal, having no merits, stands dismissed accordingly."
2. H.C.A. No, 201 of 2009 was filed against the order dated May 18, 2009, passed in Suit No, 79 of 2006 by Mr. Justice Khalid Ali Z. Qazi (as then he was). Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the judgment in the Civil Suit referred to herein above as well as H.C.A. Was not maintainable on the sole ground that the former judgment was passed by a learned Judge who was not competent to do so as he himself had been appearing before this Court on behalf of the respondents. Reference is made to order dated 4th September, 2006 passed in Civil Petition No, 764 of 2006. The said order is reproduced herein below in extenso: "SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction)
2. PRESENT: Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, HCJ Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.
3. CIVIL PETITION NO. 764 OF 2006 (On appeal against the judgment dated 3-8-2006 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in H.C.A. No, 300 of 2006).
4. Malik M. JAVED---Petitioner versus KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD and others---Respondents S. Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Advocate Supreme Court for the Petitioner.
5. Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General (Sindh) for the Respondents.
6. Date of hearing: 4th September, 2006.
7. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Learned counsel while arguing the case stated that if C.M.A. Nos. 5502 and 5603 of 2006 pending on the file of learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court are disposed of expeditiously within a period of three months, he would not press instant petition, as according to him, on account of non-disposal of these applications, inconvenience is being caused to the petitioner as well to the public at large.
8. ' In view of the statement of learned counsel instant petition is dismissed with the observation that learned Single Judge, seized with the matter, shall dispose of the applications herein above, as early as could be possible within a period of three months preferably. Sd/- Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, HCJ Sd/- Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.
9. Islamabad 4-9-2006 ' Learned counsel states that propriety demands that a person who himself had been an Advocate for a party to a matter needs to refrain from passing judicial order on elevation as Judge of the High Court. When we confronted learned counsel for the respondents with this situation obtaining in this matter, all of them agreed that Mr. Khalid Ali Z. Kazi who had appeared as counsel in the Court ought not have passed the judicial order and should have disassociated himself.
3. Be that as it may, as all of them have agreed that the order dated 18-5-2009 should not have been passed by Mr. Khalid Ali Z. Qazi, who is, now, no more Judge of the High Court, in our opinion the judgment passed by him as well as subsequent judgment dated 30-6-2009 passed in HCA, both are not sustainable. Thus for the foregoing reasons both the orders dated 30-6-2009 and 18- 5-2009 are set aside. Case is remanded to the learned High Court for disposal of the matter expeditiously as the same is pending for the last many years. On the earlier date it was observed that applications be disposed of as early as could be possible within a period of three months preferably, as it is indicated in the order dated 4-9-2006 reproduced herein above. It is, therefore, observed that the High Court may dispose of the matters preferably within a period of 6 months.
10. We are confident that the learned Chief Justice shall look into this matter and ensure the compliance of this order in letter and spirit. This order we have passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 187 of the Constitution.
11. The petition is converted into appeal and disposed above terms.
12. Constitutional Petitions Nos. 53 to 57 of 2009 ' These petitions have been filed for transfer of the case but as the case has been remanded in Civil Petition No, 1268 of 2000, therefore, we send these cases back as well to the learned High Court for disposal of the same along with the said case. These petitions are disposed of accordingly.
13. However, it is observed that the matter may be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months."