1. ' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---The Petitioner, who is the tenant/Respondent in Rent Case No.947/2011, did not cross-examine the Respondent before the Rent Controller, his side was closed for cross- examination. The Petitioner moved an application for recalling the said order, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2014 passed by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, South, which reads as under:-- "It is on record that applicant has filed his affidavit-in-evidence on 29.08.12 and since 29.08.12 till 05.03.14, the learned counsel for opponent filed application for adjournments move and other pretend and linger on the matter even once the side cross has been allowed but opponent vide order dated 03.12.13 and counsel for opponent after repented the same practice and intimation of counsel for opponent show that he only wants to linger on the matter. The sufficient time has been allowed and counsel for opponent therefore, present application is not considered hence dismissed."
2. ' The Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order preferred FRA No.72/2014, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.11.2014 by the learned VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi, South with observation that the Appeal was against the interim order, which is not permissible under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Petitioner has challenged the above impugned order in this Constitutional Petition.
3. ' Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the absence of the learned counsel for the Petitioner before the learned trial Court on 05.03.2014 was neither willful nor deliberate, but he insisted the learned trial Court for keeping aside the matter, as he has to attend this Court, but the learned trial Court did not consider his request and in a haste manner closed the side, therefore, the order of the learned trial Court for closing the side of the Petitioner is not in accordance with law as the Petitioner being tenant has been condemned unheard and he was not afforded an opportunity of cross-examining. He further submits that the order passed on the application for reopening of the side of the Petitioner, is not an interim order, but it is a final order whereby the Petitioner has been debarred from cross-examining the Respondents. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the case of The Eastern Express Company Ltd. v.
4. Messrs. Haji Khushi Muhammad (1995 M LD 470).
5. ' On the other hand, Mr. Zafar Iqbal Datt, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the side of the Petitioner was not closed on 05.03.2014, but prior to that date i.e. 29.08.2012 the side was closed on 20.11.2013 and on 03.12.2013 was reopened on the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner by giving no objection by the Respondents, but the said practice was repeated. He further submits that the order of closing the side of the Petitioner is an interim order and the same would be merged in the final order, which would be appealable under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, therefore, the order passed on 12.03.2014 by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, South, is in accordance with law and does not require interference by this Court. He further submits that the learned Division Benches of this Court have consistently held that the interim order is not appealable under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. In support of his case, learned counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance upon the case of Lion Paper Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Mrs. Sabiha Rizwan (2001 YLR 3014), Mst, Seema Bequm v, Muhammad !Shag (PLD 2009 SC. 45), Mst. Raheela Yasmeen v. Muhammad lqbal (2010 CLC 935), Mehmood Ahmed v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (1998 CLC 1987) and Syed Intesar All v. Ahmed Din Khan (1983 CLC 998).
6. ' I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Parties and perused the entire material available on record as well as the case law cited by them in support of their contentions.
7. ' I have consulted with Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which speaks that any party aggrieved by an order, not being an interim order, made by the Controller, may within 30 days of A such order prefer an Appeal to the learned District Judge having Jurisdiction, meaning thereby that the interim order is not challengeable In appeal.
8. ' The contention of learned counsel for Petitioner that the order of closing the side for cross- examination to the Respondent by the Petitioner, is not an interim order, but it is final order. In this context, in the similarly circumstances, Division Benches of this Court while dealing with similar controversy of closure the side of the Petitioner for cross-examination in the case of Mehmood Ahmed v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (1998 CLC 1987) and Syed Intesar Ali v.
9. Ahmed Din Khan (1983 CLC 998) has held that the said order of closing the side of cross- examination is an interim order, which is not appealable.
10. ' In view of the above proposition laid down in the aforesaid case law and perusal of Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the Legislature has specifically prohibited filing an appeal against the interim order. Thus, in my humble opinion, when the Legislature did not intend to make interim order challengeable going against said arrangement by exercising Writ Jurisdiction would not be proper because in that case the object of Legislature shall be frustrated.
11. ' In the instant case, the Rent Case out of which impugned order has arisen is still pending in the Court of learned Rent Controller and after its finality, the Petitioner will have right to Appeal against such decision. He will then be free to agitate all points raised by him in this Petition and the Appeal.
12. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in this Petition and dismiss the same accordingly.