M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, CJ.- This is a petition under rules 3 and 6 of the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981, read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for entertainment of the accompanying writ petition, titled Altaf and Co. Versus Adam Sugar Mills Ltd., at the principal Seat.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the provisions of Rules framed under Article 198(6) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, laying the procedure for filing of petitions at the Principal Seat and the Benches cannot abridge the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain at the Principal Seat a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, notwithstanding the position that the controversy pertains to a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of a Bench.
The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the suit has been mala fide filed by respondent No. 1 at Bahawalnagar although the said respondent has its own business at Lahore.
3. I am afraid the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have no force Rules framed under Article 198(6) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are not in conflict with the provisions contained in Articl 199 of the Constitution. Articale 199, inter alia, provides that a High Court, on the application of an aggrieved party, may give the reliefs provided for in the said Article.
The Bench of the High Court is as much the High Court as the Principal Seat is. The regulation of institution of cases under Article 199 of the Constitution and hearing thereof at the Benches and the Principal Seat through Rules in no manner would abridge the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
4. Rule 3 of the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981, specifically provides that all matters arising within the area assigned to a Bench shall be filed before and disposed of by that . Rules empowers the Chief Justice to transfer of pending proceedings at the Principal Seat or a Bench to another Bench or the Principal Seat of the High Court. This of necessity implies that a case arising within the jurisdiction of a Bench shall have to be instituted at the Bench before the exercise of jurisdiction under rule 5 can be invoked. It being the admitted position that the accompanying petition under Article 199 of the Constitution question the validity of orders, of courts functioning within the jurisdiction of Bahawalpur Bench, the petition shall have to be filed at the Bench before the same could be asked to be transferred to the Principal Seat.
5. It may pertinently be observed that rules 6 of the Rules aforementioned has no application to the petition under consideration as it relates to the powers of the Chief Justice to determine cases or class of cases which may be disposed of at the Principal seat. The application as presented requesting for direct entertainment at the Principal Seat of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of .The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, pertaining to a controversy arising within the jurisdiction of a Bench is misconceived and, therefore, does not merit to be allowed. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed in limine.