SHAHID WAHEED, J. --- Petitioner, Nazir Ahmad, through this ' Constitutional petition under. Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has called in question the order 'dated 26.6.2012 passed by learned Special Judge (Rent), Gojra, Distt. Toba Tek Singh, whereby the petitioner's application for framing of additional issue has been dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that respondents Nos. 1 and 3 filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises before the learned Special Judge (Rent), Gojra, Distt. Toba Tek Singh/respondent No. 4. In response to notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned Special Judge (Rent) and moved an application under Section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 for leave to contest the petition. Learned Special Judge
(Rent) vide order dated 19.7.2011 granted leave to contest; framed issues; and, called upon the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective claims. Subsequently, on 21.6.2012, the petitioner moved an application for framing of additional issue as the petitioner claimed that through an agreement he purchased the rented premises from the father of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and occupying the same as owner. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 resisted this application by filing a contesting reply. Learned Special Judge (Rent) vide order dated 26.6.2012, dismissed the application. Hence, this petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and paused the record.
4. At the outset of the arguments I called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to make submissions regarding the maintainability of this petition which has been moved against an interlocutory order dated {{BLUR PAGE}} noittisn incizni wit ;Imo& Cr- 26.6.2012 Paftg1ininfb4i/14fiNCRe041mJw4gPi .0344P,Oti YAlwrchmfmtiAiotWts application for framing of additional issue has been dismissed. In reply thereto, 'ill'e.i- Citifiga)counsel submits that the petitioner has no remedy except to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this cou4.r.I,-41:u afrfic411if po,pt*,p1Fblio" force. According to Section 28 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 no appeal is competent against an interlocutory order pas,sedzby Rent g' Tribunal. It - is welftieltied-priiidOletif-lat4'tfial\Wrgfilil'itiititt-ilOt4jAiytikeiVillti; a 1 againqt an jnterhiie,rkercleLtihckrtjthe.Tlame cannot be challenged by way of such an order to be impugned by Way of icopkiAlAtikonaltprAitimiwlcbarnount, umegaUpgit1Kprmyjigiorofof st4Atgryklitc,h rilfirtfarqkpipficle Acir,,A4 Appel* ,agairmkoifimetflitwogrxefietik tIlitbgcsai,c1 reference may be made to Syed Saghir A.I ty9Ani(ElaffifivieNviittfOldiwied others (1996 SCM R 1165) and Muhammad Iftikhar Mohmand Vs. Javed Muhammad and 3 othe011(4991818044ktifkkr"Flitei6a64eritetf,PreVhPAVNAZt, 2009 has been promulgated so as to regulates r91Bteimlaip AricligrAiTO tenant expeditiously and to provide a Mechanism for settlement of disputes inter se in an expeditious and cost effecfiligliiianer. If interlocutory orders regarding Mi% ?Rt; it mmoRing of itiins, vir MO evidence (1,1,riotlie li \ 0 ?MA fATI 51 F P , 1, 1`..4L(10 AO! e, 1214$1191X.listlinE tlY) etheo ;twin onli 2n. ancirenamt and Wo erefore EfrAlt rnnpromumated. uejea ing t RentO Preguse,s At 2 9 %I4s .41w17 ftitn-teAcotl Idol-lc:111Kr AfArY AUK/ agout. !Thou-f'' filE5 tlaattrtaib n99d 2c1.1 53128i ifinoitibbcio rioitndqq.6 5 . In view of above, the instInt,petitionris. Not maintainable and '1;111 31L, (16109114 ifT11.5ri, 3e ...0 p.a Iv LA a !)1.,/- ,4 IVO 09 .0 i9 no WL1 10 mg erns . .401; '8 an Ttunm the Retitiolffir snail ave to ;wadi vilaror er is pa5..Sed aria they of attack it in 1'9TCFrf,2N xfillthr5I4,1)22/7)%fn544"If MrPA3f-o.`TtiRlrillt5h-111-11II 11:4 nei, to eicise v..onNtittiti itorisuictv in ranger y LAItiNG On1,9ation P.tiocia9.1 Wit JL same which, o ect o . Jima xenpa. Emtses Act. Its de t e same is es nu 00.1 .),'Torty tont (to>,t) atty.:Kt finic* wit -tot...-0 rendered 5ftfigAIX5 fivc& 101 QOOR .12A. e_MiF*051c1 bwn65I dclinuct wit lo Ottitioivlbeir*Inotirrnibtatftablelsiv4aniirssed in 57Juboiq at.Iiticq wit nog! b5licf.) ,bnc 6.3111Vii `.1(1 310 ,f;10E.6.IE no ,s(lin3ups5edue \/11:.,1*qz311481110.11oditsmckueka. bwmcb.) .1noitit9c1 wit ac litnoitibbc to artinuil nonconqqa ac covom To Twita 3d1. mo13 252irrt51q ixtint wit b92ctbiug 9iln5ro951,GrIfi figitottit .Rol,latri3bnoqaSE ,15nwo 21; of I -.80'12.1115betorv. Wit bwtics -1 gnitzeino.) vtitit7.1 noitti:Aftiqs aitit 'hut-en I of ?Aril .5..ynH..Itoin.;:.Tilqqc *di bwe-aTt2ILAtioCeit.Bls, b5tcb (initg.) 5gbut Present: AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. bortmcfbrid 7onoiiifnq wit wit 13iiiia62krtoJ bic5rfvcri I .Gaed, etc. .b.Toz.Tui V beniC51 5dt nocitt bbelts:;I alriWITUtpft er 5111sus., 10 IWILJO ddi 1A -to vilicittnicinicat wit grtibultikthasonad Ashrif, etc. nflOilid9C1 *di 15MIJO3 DeBbi fe"). noiftlog aint ivi evisto o. Ect on 141h June; 2012. {{BLUR PAGE}} {{BLUR PAGE}} FR. Al,no 5.11! ,CONCLUSION 1if ;.:lens r I tiu f. Rffl) 1-Opi ocpae 1141.1 wt.:been, prohibited, in emeRttc)nal case when, to 511). 1.-Plarit.cent4Thi.W.-$PRIMPEreti y..3q-as -10061 ...51ISSult4FigtjuiRT:iPEE.L.1.4Reiglivid otheitgOim.Wh 3.1.t iv litcg V:WI nt-,,61:11 ,01:5,71cog !ito3q (:01101.411MAcrYL74175.!.1.)*(1,o Tb,iiinif 1115111:--JfKla 8;:1--CtitiivizereetAkil On* AnterlilaVent14.,31??
(VI)ix4Putijit0 -Act) 1-991,:)!&,sla43'4Ci4iliii-fitticedtire :,Coda; I 1908viStm41a5dPrtionptioit-1- 2ValuOtioh 44.,4uivfolbottrosti iztiiadot,fdewitivt figsue4;4.fialOnittletecieddiMiii...44- Apiiellate,CouiebileiviAladlhattibittfrairiftit _ tot issiteiibkaOingifi*antro and_ valuationof tkiltbfro iiurisdietidni*Pasoifiaterial,!Illegalityqatid Tetnandedi for ?The ' 1ptvrpose-;44Inningiteditirder;-AtatiditY124Rana4dittif.6selatitiotitkaft tiniexbeptibnat- baseslWhetrto-promott the?Iatt*Alfijustie&i,:efnitOkingotiit rPetitiofterrhad been given oppottnnity4a Tat itip...Ittruni :atiddgte4fighttIO)bheitithil ,sdhallenged.Rtemand brden;44aid:,leVilAirialt4Order pa-seedtchilatiCOOt lbelow: Was:loiProinote; cause arbyfr-orrecttfixatiottintwitte6 oust it' accordance with law would not Only be helpful for Court to ask plaintiffloYpay the Court-fee, if needpe and also for determination of forum of appeal---There was, speejfic and Clear objection in written statement as well as inapRl filed by e 5;5 A - 4 !S.C. W/1Z case framing. Of issues with regard to correct e; gsLiaszt or,suit or purpose of Court-fee andlur lotion g,ojoiyool of.c4se---No ?..6n 51-n .0:-)..4t, aim yirniolw qr imRkigned order---Clyil revision petition krnts?Ed. Rl t ,SMAK)
Slik.;") 5111-MilTy., efw.Ma no IJI11(1 .05Avs brti, ;.1\-10 S 1I.PA)(111aliaq) \,7,0.) noqu gniy151152fiti0f3'Eongtf3a1 (8I rkCOOS) .51111Da ,t.s A t.../.1 I I 11'1Z1,51 1, h bf N1311. Ma, Or p3 lort - ot 14n 73golq IQ :gnirnsil,nciff rinv;rinfog orl no ainsit5cise,,49,0,4jAkyitfici 1..1.4n1',7`) itVlonys btu) nl.m31;1/211 I11i t-ki..1)r) noqu IAPpellategr9uSt,4001r ilad,pegaamla4r4seihr *innng x ispuepn Onurt-fee4 a, . . Pre7PIPPlignAPA3W1g9W:Aismift,9:1SiAl!AY#lgfibei foiehluotla n For the Petitioners: M[uhammacrShiiiif mina .11.11 vii'"11"
For the *it thifilfailyieldiii6til.l."()
101 itoOLuiLV oi.Bugs.y. Rttiw wi.-.11Grb k*tftl.e411CF44,14i f...111.) .10 'AdEr! ,ti ^ iblf)Th. F-t---YjuDGmEStrib2i'kii_br.5 .;J"-.t *di FA-{{BLUR PAGE}}gler:Vi lit bniil 4MPIFIIIPTYTh11914N, --7,,,TPusk theifilYjlx19YisOf'bitOT pet,,itio.nRf\sAheullall,Fnse4,40,9 itislangitTzcinlinid order dated. 2.5.2011;. Lameg PYq1'fli1967#AC1S1'S/P*RittirLO 41149?.. WIL00101r, .101 litia lo ribitsulsv 6.t1i .Tnicto.535b C.L.R.{{BLUR PAGE}}
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners on 17.12.2005 filed a suit to pre-empt the sale of land measuring 64 kanals in favour of the defendants-respondents through Mutation No. 552 sanctioned on 15.9.2005. In para No. 7 of the plaint the plaintiffs-petitioners stated that the value of the suit for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 1600/- as per not profit of the suit property and fifteen times not profit is Rs. 24000/-. The written statement was filed. In preliminary objection No. 8 as well as in reply to para No. 7 of the written statement, it was specifically objected that incorrect valuation has been mentioned. The suit was contested. The learned Trial Court framed issues and invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.7.2010 decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred and the learned first Appellate Court held that non-framing of issues regarding the fixation, of the value of the suit for the purpose of Court- fee and jurisdiction is material illegality rendering the impugned judgment and decree liable to be set aside and remanded the case to the learned Trial Court with the direction to frame issue in the light of objection No. 8 of the written statement and allow the parties to produce, their respective evidence and decide the suit afresh, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon Mst. Sughra Bibi alias Mehran Bibi v. Asghar Khan and another (1988 SCM R 4) states that improper framing of issues is not fatal defect and the first Appellate Court has wrongly remanded the case. In this context reliance has been further placed on cases titled Fazal Muhanunad Bhatti and another v. Mst. Saeeda Akhtar and 2 others (1993 SCM R 2018) and Kaura and others v. Allah Ditta and others (2000 CLC 1018). Learned counsel relying upon cases Qazi Shamsur Rehman and another v. Mst. Chaman Dasta and others (2004 SCM R 1798) states that the first Appellate Court was not entitled to suo motu attend the objection of the appellants on the point with regard to non-framing of proper issues. Further relying upon Chairman Wapda Lahore and another v. Gulbat Khan (1996 SCM R 230) states that remand of the case being not, a routine matter, it should not be adopted as a matter of course to allow any party or authority to fill in lacuna or to improve its case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that law with regard to fixation of the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction was amended in the year 1990 and the value for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction is to be fixed according to the value of the land in respect of which the right is claimed calculated by multiplying the produce index units of such land with the money value of a produce index as notified by the Government. Learned counsel while relying upon Khandan v. Mst. Qamar-un-Nisa and others (2007 SCM R 551) states that it was the duty of the Court to determine the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court- fee and jurisdiction. The learned first Appellate Court has rightly dealt with the issue and further relying upon Mst. Rasheeda Bibi and others v. Mukhtar Ahmed and others (PLJ 2010 SC 530). Mst.
Rasheeda Bibi and others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others (2008 SCM R 1384), Munawar Hussain and 2 others v. Sultana Ahmad (2005 SCM R 1388) states that it is an exceptional case, non-framing of issue by the learned Trial Court on the objection raised by the defendants-respondents with regard to fixation of improper value for the purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fee by the plaintiffs was fatal, as no specific case-law declared by this Court and the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has been referred, which may be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. If Court- fee is leviable then the suit was not proceedable without payment of Court-fee and the fixation of incorrect value of the suit by the plaintiffs themselves was a contumacious act and further that by correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction, the forum of appeal is also to be determined.
5. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. I have noticed that the plaintiffs-petitioners without care and caution have fixed the value of the suit for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction which is absolutely against the existing law. In a pre-emption suit for land in accordance with Section 7(vi) of the Court-fees Act Punjab amendment which is as follows:--- "(a) Where the subject-matter is land, according to the value of the land in respect of which the right is claimed calculated by multiplying the produce index units of such land with the money value of a produce index as notified by the Government." and in accordance with Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 the value for the purposes of jurisdiction will be the same.
7. The law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners declared by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Chairman Wapda, Lahore and another v. Gulbat Khan (supra) that remand of the case being not, a routine matter, it should not be adopted as a matter of course to allow any party or authority to fill in lacuna or to improve its case, I bow before the dictum declared by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan but at the same time the remand of case has not been prohibited in exceptional cases when to promote the cause of justice. Even in case in hand petitioner has been given opportunity to fill, up lacuna and astonishingly he has challenged the remand order. I believe that it is an exceptional case and remand order passed by the first Appellate Court was to promote the cause of justice as by correct fixation of value of the suit in accordance with law will not only be helpful for the Court to ask the plaintiffs to pay the Court-fee, if need be and also for the determination of forum {{BLUR PAGE}} 1.1 Of aPPearItitlieSe Circumstances, there 6 'stpr%ifi6 and clear "p.m the Written statement as well as in the appeal' riled by the respondeZe endants. v% The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitionerS are not applicable to the facts of this case as in this case framing of issues with regard to the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction go to the root of the case as It 'helpful for the payment of the Court-fee and for determination of forum of appeal etc. In this view of the matter the remand Order passed by the first Appellateourt is unexceptional. I see no illegalitY''dr infirmity in the impugned order! Iuu riminuluv pniTne yd him Civit'revision petition diatilitied.
10 ririnol ?Jrli Ai 101 i&-12111.10',) bwriot 5111 fljod Z01,47c41.1,1'.204 b-iseri .o-xisteizes ch-ik whore]. Wrici bus siNnel has 51'3;1 lijoriiiw al3fi' Present: SHAHID VVAHEED, -.6 tins 551-nunD in tizogniq I flfiv 7tt b3y.It I 11J Mian Aurangzeb: - riniirAcriri-tmi gt,' rku.d.11 rioriuiriznei g 05)-3.133(0 Versus Cfarieb1oD35 ni: bail 101 brifflf; Rent Controller andii.e11(1 IN nis &-iiiii46?h623 of 201O, decided on 1Uthu . ,(n)r 74 10 ID,(4?11 tai 31.8.16011'i:10 511111V VtflOrfl5ris ri1CONCIAISIONSinti tymitx-rfq , .. , . -(1) Remedy which is not directly' available catilibt-be sought indirectly ,,ii v,,..:, : through indirectmeans. ,-.; 8 rieri-1.-;;',? Dm,/ 57,,rivrb-lon3f; :: , :;,,. '
(2) The aggrieVetPtierson may invoke the jurisditiiiii4Tifiglitourt under enui Article 199 of the Constitution wiO#na!Reasonabliptime' interpreted to . _ - IV , I : I be 90 days. .Ri\-.,. ,:, itt nazi.)11.9 "bo rwoD .5rn-siqu'e izugus uril ,(ri bw.1:.g./1
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1913).-- 1 Inkl)k Int3iWO,. .,./ i'mkumm tmn w.:AO. -, ' ,-= ' ,, ' : - :fi?...,)i ,1 '31 ,3nindt).1 - --Art. 199---Invocation of writ jurisdiction of 1-411. ,,,,,,,n of "reasonable tinie"---Interpretation---Aggrieved perion maYitiVoke ' IW .Vilt jurisdiction of the High Court within a `reason,riat, time' interpreted (Y ile&,,:, ;01, #TBS 199---Impugned ititefilocut9rx order- Invocationsmicityo,s4ic,cion of F110,Court---POnciple of law-- en, a statute does oqt,Rtoyjcle art appeal C.L.112.{{BLUR PAGE}} #TBE #TBS -,11; z t. 541 fji()ffifilq #TBE #TBS (h)!C:bnstitution otPailtlatan (1973)--- - --;"11(1=)'2,4t'' " #TBE #TBS Ref.p.LD 1975 SC-ps,,pup 2011 SC 676, 2011 PSC (SC Pak)-,4i #TBE #TBS JOI #TBE days. {{BLUR PAGE}} against an interlocutory order then the same cannot be challenged by way of Constitutional petition as allowing such an Oifcier to be impugned by way of Constitutional petition would amount to tidiatilig :the prOVisions-ofilieliafute which does not proVide for an appeal against an interlociiiiiiit'bider. .141 (pan Ref. 1996 SCMf'1164), 94)St S3t';'1994 SCM R 1965, PLD 1978 Lah:'
1459.
RENT CASE--,(Cluottreof rjOt to lead evidence)
(OCOnStittAtioll of Nkistan'(1973)--1 ,t 2?-iiiit.109-)21i*Unjab't/rban Rent Restriction 'Ordinance, 1959; SS. 13,.15-Civil 1958; 0. XVII, R. 1---case; for evicticin-=-Petitioner despite r'ariA1/01...Iiiid-not'produde evidence and Collsettiently Rent Contialier struck off defence of petitioner---Impugned interim order-"Reasonable opportunitie- LIljdel, ordetrOal4 witz.4pqa,,Acnt, coptrotig oNte0;p0tioner to produce eviclenee,thMeTeaftep,_91,sq,yog:Aix44:on.1.?102099..,,y4,,,vo9, 21.3.2009 and 9z4.2Q0 .,for.; production Egnp titipner's e*tefle.1,-70iFqP: on 2.3.2009 and 21 1.2Q( vrtiolkT4bugaI yiks on leave petitioner did. Not produce; evidence-- Qn 9.4.2009, Rentz,gontrollek, granted .,last opportunity tta.Pctitionerr, for production of evidgmemtpAtheoRtt date of hearing, i.e. _2!,1,.4z2pq*deseite.,1ast warningc petitioner ,didiAtpt)productIA14dence and soughtoadjota3arnent13Rent ContrpliertafterAmpqsimilOg-granterl another last opportunity for prod on of oildencem,YetitiortgAtill 4ickgolproduce. Evidence and in those circumstances, gclikt, controller struck off yiAfr,fice,pf petitioner for non-production of evidence-- 404o... "Reasonable.
Oppralusities" were allowed to petitioner---Rent Controller could not wait ,forincleftnitof period for the tenant to produce evidence more specifically when dispute between landlord and tenant requiring to be settled not quickly' but In summary manner---PetitiOti8Fiftelatrie of more than one feat approialieifillih Court through inStiliteiSetition--=Even Constitutional was iniPtiktied Atteritil/iPtqlPotlblrY order---Wry.
(paras 10,11) v;.f.
Ref. PLD 2011.SC 676, PLD ,1975 SC 678 VW1.4.74 jfahl1l4p9, 1994 SCM R.
65, 1996.ScAR 1165x 1998 SCM R 328, A*, AMR S944-.561, 1998 SC.MR CLC 729, 19$0 c147467s. 2011 PS ;(SC Pak),8?A, jii;LrLSJX'z-J14-1;2.1.,irc).7"01r .4ni5r.f E. .Ii H1 atsifr.31 n CI'i070 <11;Mtcl. .)lit 'to {{BLUR PAGE}} [Rent Controller had passed impugned order whereby right of evidence of petitioner was struck off after giving ample opportunities. Even otherwise, writ petition was not maintainable against an interlocutory order. Dismissed].
For the Petitioner: M. Javaid Iqbal Qureshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: Muhammad Younas Ch., Advocate. Date of hearing: 10th May, 2012.
SHAHID WAHEED, J. --- Petitioner, Mian Aurangzeb Noon, being tenant through this Constitutional petition has called in question validity of order dated 11.5.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, whereby the petitioner's right of defence has been struck off due to non- production of evidence.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, Mst. Nazir Begum, being owner and landlady filed an application under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent; illegal partition/devision of the demised premises; and, personal bona fide need. In response to summons the petitioner appeared before the learned Rent Controller and submitted a contesting written statement. On 4.12.2006 the learned Rent Controller out of the divergent pleadings of the parties framed issues and called upon the parties to produce evidence. After closure of evidence of respondent No. 2 the petitioner despite warning could not produce evidence and resultantly vide order dated 11.5.2009 the learned Rent Controller struck off the defence of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3. . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/tenant was not allowed adequate opportunity to lead his evidence in defence whereas respondent No. 2 was given several opportunities.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner/tenant but despite warning he did not produce evidence and, therefore, learned Rent Controller rightly struck off defence of the petitioner for non-production of evidence; that the Constitutional petition suffers from laches as the same was filed after lapse of more than one year; and, that Constitutional petition against the interlocutory order is not maintainable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record appended with this petition.
6. In the instant case respondent No. 2 being owner/landlady filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller on 4.12.2006 framed issues and directed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. Respondent No. 2/landlady produced affidavit before the learned Rent Controller but the petitioner/tenant, firstly, sought repeated adjournments for cross-examination of witnesses; and, secondly, adopted dilatory tactics such as change of counsel and filing of miscellaneous applications. Finally, vide order dated 22.11.2008 a final opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine -the witnesses of respondent No. 2 and as a result thereof tross- examination was completed on 20.12.2008. After completion of evidence of respondent No. 2, learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20.12.2008 .Directed the petitioner to produce evidence.
Thereafter, the case was fixed on 17.1.2009, 11.2.2009, 2.3.2009, 21.3.2009 and 9.4.2009 for production of petitioner's evidence. Except on 2.3.2009 and 21.3.2009, when Tribunal was on leave, the petitioner did not produce evidence. On 9.4.2009 the learned Rent Controller granted last opportunity to the petitioner for production of evidence. On the next date of hearing i.e. 24.4.2009 despite last warning, the petitioner did not produce evidence and sought adjournment. Learned Rent Controller after imposing cost of Rs. 100/- granted another last opportunity for production of evidence. The petitioner still did not produce evidence and in these circumstances learned Rent Controller vide order dated 11.5.2009 struck off the defence of the petitioner for non-production of evidence. In view of principle laid down in the case of Muhammad Aslam and others v. Muhammad Yousaf (1980 CLC 467), Messrs Nazir Muhammad and Brothers and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1990 CLC 729) and Munawar Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Jhelum and 3 others (1998 SCM R 1067) it is clear that "reasonable opportunities" were allowed to the petitioner in terms of provision of sub- section (2) of Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as the learned Rent Controller could not wait for indefinite period for the tenant to produce evidence more specifically when dispute between landlord and tenant requiring to be settled not only quickly and in summary manner but also in accordance with guidelines provided ,by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Barkat All v. Muhammad Ehsan and others (2000 SCM R 556) for curtailing the delay in the disposal of rent cases. It may also be noted here that although learned Rent Controller was not bound to follow the Code of Civil Procedure yet he substantially complied with the provisions of Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code as the petitioner despite warning and fine did not produce evidence.
7. There is yet another aspect of the case. A Constitutional petition has been filed against the interlocutory/interim order dated 11.5.2009. According to Section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 no appeal is competent against the interim order of the learned Rent Controller; only final order is amenable to appeal. It is well-settled principle of law that when a statute does not provide an appeal against an interlocutory order then the {{BLUR PAGE}} kaiTiR,,cfmirt be challenged by way of Constitution4pctitiOn as allowing such an Mc* t() be impugned by -way of a Constitutional petition would amount to negating the ptoy*pos of the statto yt_llipt gd.9eAinolOvige for an appeal against an interlocutory order. According 1,0 Rootesbatigeprpigat I op of statute Court would not act in a manner by111)iFtligjeviiptir6tigti.,ke-,statute is defeated and.Same is rendered nugatory in the.TAtcl reiffrience if made to,Syed Saghir A.I' Nftfitti !..Wyff., Province of Sin4h ,qfffff:Offii. ,k1?,.,8)),' CMR''. 11-P.1' . Ri .
'Muhammad Iftikhar Mehmand v. Javed Muhammad find 3 others (1998 SC...,, -J.:: . , .- '--io 511i t.)!
DV . . 1.01J. Ti.),1.4 other words remedy which-is not direct! Available .Cannot b sou it .., J.:.: oto;) ,-31. . - pue. j-; PS r.:IW ::. MYL,11',..Not()",7:-` indirecl1Y-tivough indirect means. Tbg.11on'bfe upreme Colt pf Y. An the 94e ,9f .4ed Saghir Ahmgd iyavi . v. proviKet o time ,throuO ,it: , ,10m.Ifil 7'44 . " _iii.--ei.
Secret20$fdAD, Karachi an4 another (1996 & 1t6 '1" ligoithat I , 1 S.atItte.,w1tidipjk a right of app pio intern orders canBoi tae ..J., _. ......, ..., .... . ,._1 Jo 'IQ!, .:. 4 io. ' :- ..... Onli 3 3 r ti bringfegi Ifft405 attack such. Interim orders bit, tainstitulion eiriedic = . :-.;,...,,Ji ..,,, Ott u ,,.)--1.>:-...i , r.:of ignp-31-1 415 Vi -.J1J...... . ,.. 1M T. ...,..t.....- .F..., u z.Xjfiyupt.5 3111 item kirderAnd t eitto attac ,party affected 4,t to_ wait till it matures into %II- he proper excluskve forum created for the purppse for examining such orderS. ..Iui , , 'ffn r.t/100.r.Firl 5rli Cp VI Ira ( 0 .Similarly, in the ease of S,yefl.Qamar Ahmacta anth4r.v. Mutt) ar case -. .... ,-, tll. . .1 .., if.12.--i that where _others (1994 SCR 60,,rlie.-44on'lilf Suprerrie Cottrt .Als observed that Whfre a statute, under which the iinpugried order is made; itself pro,viges a rem.; y, tg
1. , j ftl _ .r,,,M,;71P3f0:1 lij!IL/CP: fir".;- iffl Yli ut Court should be loathed to bypass special statute and em4ar ippon icial viiiiii . 1 E.:',ViCy --C.A/ ..?. review. The arguments that tli petitioner has no otti6r a equate,. e icacid,......,:a.t.,,, ,i ..Arj., '.-,' ' ' : ir.)f$it '
1.I1?. " Of13..r. lid remedy to assail the validity, or :interlocutory order iaS'. Irs,c1.1.-nO',toye''fiii-'(the follOwing cogent reason gived,f i'iDivisitin B'ench-Of [ii d'o' n' iii' e Case 'Of ,.-, - .,-.-,.,,,,,,-) .17)till ..,,,,A 4'S tirltu rAt \ A0111214: Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Saratual_FaOrha a mot er :t vi.,0.To las.,,x, mocatt ilimsATh.114, -,..,::.s.-...?1,..e.
1459): ,,, ,:, , ,'invisill 11V1fsi111141. Bras (Per an 0.9on -.,-,,-.., a. ,._, "The Constitutional jurisdictionisiitiwilad 414- 1fDactOlaNailAble+.Iff.04sets iu E l . No, :of , itnminent, grave and,:tfingibipl-thrsA,Itii toi,:v:alXii0:11e- PP1Ttiqq:Aolltd iri351 b.-Jr:property rights and thatiogiubje4filifttgf....01igslOrtttomcInd*ttl Aliatc* 33a5biv3 legal ,Nvi4e0Ym-if ,At *I 1../4w,ifYailAblfr.Iiik;09:-./CiFSPIA189c411o4f1-0.9t r.1 of ;):- Iitqc4PiCP491. adecluattl4P thiRi4Pfla919,0FiE W4 4Yi#.0f,RAisAPP riliv, 31_,tangible da.Tnage, to the appellancond ins4pableigkcensinettyAfry.4is 'to 52i;....) ,h4ensecl.. In gr'cir,.To,pose a J- 194Atleflot_to,..A5At Nisitgizempis9ictilti d nth ,..Nilinilmlanother order a, rm o men! . It, so hNysit.,,AfiglaftfappTin\yg., huotiiii, aFffrite...No the.3ppillanc: which right is certakolyhirmrelex3tRoSpe.i&nd 3,5. ,nobt,k,merf,s!All)eil*lvailable in the same hierarchy,,Rnd,on.Polfimestioris . , . Lpri... Tr.7, ,nir.,3 ,-,1 9f i4Vt a4 Wpg as of facts. q f ....,,x)._ ,,,,,f,, it... . : -' 1', L:,iiigritc.:, ,(11$:iiiiVin 1 dila .t..
8. 8. . Lastly it.- may be stated thatith,criloarnedtiiia*, ControavAn 11.5.2009 passed order for.,striking off the defence and the petitioner after a 1 s.e of more than one year' approached thetcoutt iiir81igh'instant 'Petition for 1.110: 5ni ji . . Lam/ . Ting aii4jthe iiniiiittla&clet)tfleittiiiiiW'iiiiini'eoUitlit:iii ea of t.). indikYdriViiii alegiiithiiiiictii'13;44Viruir5iiiiet?-kiiinii /15' -CYO)
11)10iittisiiiii)'/iiigi4iiiiiiiiint'A(iiiies Cdiii6iiitiOh4ictridiRgif)9.`tn sifi-- leiiiiianland otheis Otrt 20rt sc. 6761: haS helifititifriig,grie46d3rietiirkifigy 11,Intrli ltblo yi-:;11.c.s0iiblitt 11ii 1arili4k.s im.Igcle of. &-Jivatti Ion 2301 wiftzli,.. G 115f1W iii....p{{BLUR PAGE}} invoke the jurisdiction of the High. Court under Article 199 of the Constitution within a "reasonable time" and interpreted "reasonable time" to be 90 days. The present petition, therefore, suffers from laches.
9. In view of above, this petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed with cost. .