1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Constitutional Petition No,S-36 of 1984. The dispute is in respect of property hearing Shop No,E/1776/A situated at Faqir-Jo-Pir, Hyderabad. On its transfer to the appellant, respondent No,1 since deceased, challenged it and the matter proceeded before various departmental forums and appeal was also filed. From the facts stated in the impugned order it is clear that there has been several rounds of litigation in which parties had exhausted all appellate and revisional forums provided under the Settlement Laws. The petitioner had filed constitutional petition against the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner who had ordered that the property was to the disposed of by public auction. As property was not disposed of till 1-7-1974, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner treating it to be a pending case ordered for transfer to the appellants. This order has been set aside by the impugned judgment.
2. ' The question is whether in these circumstances this appeal is maintainable. In this regard reference can be made to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 which reads as follows:-- "S.3. Appeal to High Courts in certain cases.--(1) An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from a decree passed or final order made by a Single Judge of that Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.
(2) An appeal shall also lie to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court under clause (1) or Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan not being an order made under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of that clause: ' Provided that the appeal referred to in this subsection shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or Authority against the original order.
(3) No appeal shall lie under subsection (1) or subsection (2) from an interlocutory order or an order which does not dispose of the entire case before the Court.
(4) Nothing contained in this Ordinance, shall be construed as affecting--
(a) any appeal under the provisions of the Letters Patent applicable to a High Court or under section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) which was pending immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance; or
(b) any appeal or petition for leave to appeal from a decree, judgment or order of a Single Judge of High Court made to the Supreme Court before the commencement of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972."
3. From the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 it is clear that intra-Court appeal will not lie where the impugned judgment has been passed in a petition under Article 199 which arises from the proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review. In this case the Settlement law applicable provided for appeal and revision and before coming to the High Court under Article 199 such appeals were tiled and orders were passed. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment passed in the petition under Article 199 is an original order against which no appeal lies as the Settlement Laws were repealed on 1-7-1974 and the order had been passed on 26-6-1974. The learned counsel has relied on 1984 SCMR 332 in which it was held that forum of revision before the Settlement Commissioner was not kept alive by repealing Act, 1975, after the said date. This observation does not apply to the present case as the proviso bars intra-Court appeal in cases specified therein. Undoubtedly there were provisions for appeal and revision in the Settlement Laws, therefore, in our view this appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed. Consequently all the applications are also dismissed.