' This S.A.O. Was instituted on 17-5-1975 under the then existing subsection (4) of section 15 of the West Pakistan (now Punjab) Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, VI of 1959, against the order dated 2-4-1975 passed by the learned District Judge, Gujranwala, rejecting an appeal filed by Abdur Rashid and Muhammad Rafique sons of Siraj Din against the order dated 19-11-1974 (misdescribed as dated 15-11-1974, in the heading of his order) passed by Mr. Khadim Hussain Malik, Rent Controller, Gujranwala whereby he rejected a petition filed by them against Muhammad Yousuf respondent for his eviction from Khokha No.5 situated in Gali Araianwali, Gujranwala City on the ground of its requirement for being demolished alongwith an adjoining shop for the purpose of reconstruction in accordance with a building-plan sanctioned by the Municipal Committee.
2. This appeal is not accompanied by the certified copy either of the memorandum of appeal filed below or even of that of the order passed by the Controller. There, however, are private copies of these two documents appended and whereas in the former, the order of the Controller is described as having been passed on 15-11-1974, the katcha copy of the Controller's order bears the date 19-11- 1974 but there is no certified copy of the Controller's order of either date available on this record. At the foot of the memorandum of this appeal there have been added two foot-notes as under:- "N.B.-Copy of the Rent Controller's order has been applied for and shall be placed as soon as available.
(Sd . ) A dvocate. "
"N.B.-No application for exemption of certify copy is necessary. May be fixed as it is. I shall explain the position.
(Sd.) Advocate."
' Relevant part of subsection (4) of section 15 of the Ordinance, as it existed then, is reproduced hereunder:- "(4) Any parity aggrieved of an order passed on appeal by the appellate authority appointed by the Government under clause (a) of subsection (1), may, within 30 days from the date of the order of the appellate authority , prefer an appeal in writing to the High Court and the decision thereof shall be final.
' Explanation.--An appeal under the subsection shall be heard and determined as an appeal from the appellate order under section 100 of the said Code if it is from an order of the appellate authority and the provisions of Part VI and of the First Schedule to the said Code relating to appeals shall, with such modifications as context may require, apply to such proceedings."
' Second appeals to be filed under section 100 of the C.P.C. Have been dealt with in Order XLII of the C.P.C., whereto Rule 2 was added by the High Court's Notifications No.4685-G, dated 17th October, 1919 and No.138.G., dated 19th March, 1926, as under:- "In addition to the copies specified in Order XLI, rule 1, the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of the Court of first instance unless the appellate Court dispenses therewith."
3. As has been mentioned earlier, at the time of filing of this appeal, learned counsel stated that a certified copy of the Controller's order has been applied for which will be furnished as soon as it is made available but none has been furnished until today despite the expiry of a period of more than 12 years. Since the stand of the learned counsel was also that an application for exemption of certified copy was not necessary, therefore, an order of exemption from production of certified copy of the Controller's order was not secured. There is no prayer for this purpose made at any stage. This second appeal cannot, therefore, be considered to be properly constituted and is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
4. However, I have heard the learned counsel at length with regard to the merits of the case but neither of them has adverted his attention to the above defect which has been noticed now at the time of writing this judgment, therefore, I consider it appropriate' that merits of the appeal may also be adverted to.
' Before proceeding further, it is also relevant to mention here that one of the appellants, namely, Abdur Rashid has since withdrawn from the appeal. C.M. No.5327/C-81 was filed for this purpose whereat my learned brother Muhammad Ilyas J., dismissed the entire appeal on 23-9-1981 but subsequently, R.A.No.43/C/81 filed by the other appellant Muhammad Rafique was allowed on 22- 11-1982 to revive the S.A.O. Qua him and is now being proceeded with by him. The natural consequence of Abdul Rashid having withdrawn his appeal is that he did not anymore remain on the record as an appellant and his name is deemed to have been struck off from the array of parties. Since he was a necesssa ry party to the proceedings, therefore, he should have been got formally arrayed as a respondent but no such step has been taken by the remaining appellant with the result that in his absence, this appeal has become incapable of being proceeded with so that an inconsistent order is not open to be passed in it.
5. The plea of eviction has been negatived by the learned District Judge with the conclusion reached on the basis of evidence that the same is neither reasonable nor made in good faith. His conclusion on the point appears to be in concurrence with that of the Controller, a certified copy of whose judgment has not been furnished but the original judgment available on the record received here confirms that it is a concurrent finding on a question of pure fact. There is no error of law or jurisdiction pointed out to be involved therein. Hence, there is no case made out for interference.
6. In result, this S.A.O. Is dismissed, without any order as to costs.