1. ' DORAB PATEL, J.-The respondent No, 2 is the landlord of the petitioners and has filed an eviction application against them under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the said Ordinance) which is pending before the first respondent. The petitioners, after service, did not file their written statement/but advanced an ingenious objection.
2. This was that the eviction application was filed on behalf of the second respondent by his attorney, one Ghulam Hyder, and according to them the power of attorney of the said Ghulam Hyder was forged and was not admissible. They had, therefore, filed an application under section 151, C. P. C.
3. Before the first respondent (Annexure "E" to the petition) which was dismissed by the first respondent on the ground that it was technical objection which was not material at the then stage of the proceedings. However, the first respondent very properly directed the second respondent to correct his power of attorney. The second respondent did so. The petitioner filed fresh objections.
4. This application was disposed of by the first respondent by the following order, dated 5th February, 1973 "Heard both sides .....All the objections raised by the opponent will be decided on merits."
5. ' Then as the first respondent felt that the petitioners were deliberately delaying the proceedings, he directed them to file their written statement. The second respondent has also filed an application for permission to file a fresh power of attorney but this application also appears to have been dismissed. Then the petitioners filed another application that the second respondent should be directed to file a proper power of attorney or else the eviction application should be dismissed. The hearing of this application was put off to 24th February, 1973. Meanwhile the written statement was filed, but the petitioners have now filed a Constitutional Petition against the first respondent's order dismissing their objections to the power of attorney of the second respondent.
6. ' In his submission before us, the learned counsel stated that the power of attorney executed by the respondent No, 2 was unstamped but the objection advanced before the first respondent on 22nd December, 1972, was that it was a forged power. Be that as it may, the first respondent's order is challenged before us solely on the basis of a judgment reported in PLD 1964 Lah.
652. Iqbal, J., as he then was has taken the view in this case that the provisions of Order III, C. P. C.
7. Are applicable to proceedings under the said Ordinance and in this view of the matter it would follow that an eviction application cannot succeed if it has been filed by attorney, whose power of attorney is not valid. But there is nothing in the judgment to support the view that this objection should be decided at a preliminary stage and thereby delay the proceedings. Additionally the 'judgment was pronounced before the declaration of the law by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Khadim Mohyuddin v. Ch. Rehmat Ali Nagra (1). The view of their Lordships in this case was that proceedings under the said Ordinance are of quasi-judicial or administrative nature and that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in terms to such proceedings. The view of Iqbal, J., may therefore, require consideration in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
8. Even otherwise, we are not impressed by the pleas of the petitioners. They could have challenged the impugned order in an appeal which has not been done. We also cannot appreciate their grievance. It is not that their plea has been rejected, but in order to prevent them from delaying proceedings the first respondent has merely held that the objections would be decided at a later stage presumably when the main case was decided. We are of the view that the first respondent has exercised his discretion very properly.
9. ' There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed in limine.
(I) PLD 1965 SC 459