SYED ABDUR RAHMAN J,- In this F.R A. Reference was made by the then Honourable Chief Justice on 4.11.1987 whereby the following two points were referred to this Division Bench for resolving the conflict of views amongst the Judges of this Court:
1. That the appellant is in possession of a portion of the building, therefore he is in possession of a building in the same locality.
2. That the appellant retired from service and attained the age of 60 years much before the purchase of the building.
The view of learned Judge in the case of Dominic Pereira v. Mrs. Hameeda Begum (1983 C.L.C. 317) was that in such a situation the widow cannot press into service the provisions of Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance while the view of the learned Judge in the case of Kamal Afreen v. Mansoor Muhammad Qureshi (PLD 1983 Kar. 598) was to the contrary.
2. Today when the reference came up for hearing before us there is no appearance for the appellant. Mr. Mohammad Ali Jan has appeared for the respondent. He has submitted an application under section 151 C.P.C, alongwith photostat copy of the sale deed and has brought it to the notice of the court that the respondent has sold out the entire property where the premises in question is situated to one Syed Abdul Ghani. Hence the appellant has no further interest in the property.
3. Since the appellant has sold away the property, no effective relief can be given to him in the F.R A. By the learned Single Judge who will bear the same. The point referred to this Division Bench would therefore become only of an academic interest. It is settled law that the court has to interpret the law writ reference to. The facts stated and the reliefs prayed in the pleadings. The court is not expected to give decision on or hypothetical questions. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of a Division Bench of Lahore High Court in case of Pakistan Steel Re- Rolling Mills Association v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1964 (W.P) Lah. 138), where it has been held as follows: "In writ jurisdiction, reliefs claimed have to be construed and granted in terms of the prayers made in the petition (See Pakistan v. Ali Afzal) and the Courts are not called upon merely to decide metaphysical questions of law without reference to the relief which is sought in the petition."
4. Apart from that the appellant's counsel has withdrawn the power on the last date of hearing and no other advocate has been engaged in his place. Hence.We feel that we will not be able to get proper legal assistance to enable us to decide the questions referred to us.
Hence we return the reference without being answered. This may be placed before the Hon'able Chief Justice for necessary directions.