1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The first appeal under Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 filed by the landlord (appellant herein) against the order dated 29-10-1985 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt. Was summarily dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court without summoning the record. He rejected the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal could not be disposed of without summoning the record and examining it observing:- "Learned counsel claims that this appeal has to be admitted as a matter of course so that record is summoned and the respondents are enabled to be heard as per the requirements of Section 24(3) of the Act, as substituted on 31-1-1985, by Ordinance IX of 1985. This does not appear to be the intention of the law that every appeal, whether or not it has any merit, will entail summoning of record and respondent because for this purpose, a prima facie case has invariably to be first made out. Since in this case appellant has not pleaded a case capable of meeting with success, therefore, I do not consider that any useful purpose may be served by sending for the record of the case and calling upon the respondents to be heard."
2. ' Leave to appeal was granted by this Court to examine the question of law of general application arising in the case namely, whether a first appeal preferred under Section 24(3) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (as amended A by Ordinance IX of 1985), could be disposed of without summoning or examining the record of the case.
3. ' Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Section 24(3) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 as substituted as Ordinance IX of 1985 provides:- "(3) The High Court shall, after perusing the record of the case and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further enquiry either by itself or by the Controller as it may deem fit, make an appropriate order which shall be final".
4. ' The bare reading of this provision indicates that the appropriate orders are to be made by the High Court after perusing the record of the case and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. This can only be possible if the appeal has been admitted, record summoned and the notice issued to the parties to appear before the Court and of being heard.
5. ' In fact, the provision of subsection (3) of Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, a statute dealt with the same subject, contained a similar provision, which has come up for consideration before this Court.
6. ' Subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance provided as follows:-- "The appellate authority shall decide the appeal after sending for the record of the case from the Controller, and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller."
7. ' The true scope of the meaning of this provision was considered by this Court in Begum Humayun Zulfiqar Ismail and another v. Begum Hamida Saadat Ali 1968 SCMR 828 and Hamoodur Rehman, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking on behalf of the Court observed:- "Generally in an appeal from an original decree, the appeal is both on facts and on law but in an appeal from an appellate decree or order the appeal is on grounds of law only. In an original appeal or what is more commonly called a first appeal the first appellate Court is the final Court of facts. Dismissal under Order XLI, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure of a first appeal is, therefore, not the general rule. If the facts are not simple or undisputed a first appeal is not generally dismissed in limine. But in the present case it appears to us that subsection (3) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance clearly incorporates within it the rule that the appellate authority will not dispose of the appeal without first sending for the record of the case from the Controller and hearing the parties and further, if necessary, making such further enquiry as it deems fit. The duty to call for the record in the first instance is imperative. It is difficult therefore, to agree that under this subsection the appellate authority could dismiss an appeal in limine. Since the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been made applicable to an appeal under subsection (3) as has been done in the case of an appeal to the High Court under subsection (4), there appears to be substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that subsection (3) of Section 15 is a complete Code of Procedure in itself for the purposes of an appeal under that subsection. We cannot, therefore, approve of what the learned District Judge has done in the present case. In our view there had been no proper disposal of the appeal by the District Judge."
8. (Underlining is ours)
9. We respectfully agree and would hdld that a first appeal preferred under Section 24(3) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1963 as amended by Ordinance IX of 1985 cannot be disposed of without summoning and examining the record of the case. On this view of the matter we hold that the appeal preferred before the High Court in this case has not been disposed of properly.
10. ' We would, accordingly, allow this appeal and remand the case back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. The costs of this appeal will be costs in the cause. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.