' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against an order dated 22-5-2010 passed by learned Special Judge (Rent), Gujrat whereby he entertained the petition under section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and allowed the same.
2. At the call of the case,. Learned counsel for respondents did not turn up although his name is reflected in the cause list, as such the ex parte proceedings are taken against respondents.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petition seeking leave to contest the ejectment petition was instituted on 21-10-2009 while the first appearance of the respondents in court was on 11-9-2009, thus, the same was filed beyond the period of ten days as prescribed by the law.
4. The examination of record appended with this petition reveals that after the service of notice the respondents for the first time appeared in court on 11-9-2009 who were directed to file petition under section 22 of the Act ibid, the respondents sought adjournment for the purposes and filed the same on 21-10-2009 which was obviously beyond the period as prescribed by section 22(2) of the Act ibid. In this matter the court does not enjoy any jurisdiction to condone the time for filing the petition. This Court is conscious of the fact that this court can not exercise constitutional jurisdiction against the interlocutory orders passed by court constituted under above said Act in view of the provisions contained in section 28(2) of the Act but in the instant case the leave application has been filed beyond the period of limitation which was not only entertained by the court but had also granted the same. Thus, the Court exercised jurisdiction in entertaining application which is not vested in it under mandatory provisions of statute. If this practice of entertaining a time barred petition under section 22 of the Act ibid is not curbed at this stage that may lead to long standing litigation between the parties which would waste the precious public time, cause inconvenience to the parties and would defeat spirit of legislation. Keeping in view this principle in mind this court is of the view that in such like matters this court may interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction.
5. Accordingly the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Gujrat is not maintainable in the eyes of law, as such is liable to be set aside.
6. The petition is accordingly allowed by declaring the impugned order as having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal consequence and same is set aside. The learned Special Judge (Rent) is directed to proceed with the matter and pass an order under section 22(6) of the Act ibid.