' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---This Intra-Court Appeal arises out of order dated 23-1-1988 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No, 261/88, whereby he declared "Certificate of Talaq" issued in favour of the appellant to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Shortly stated the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that Riaz Ahmad Malik appellant and respondent No,1 were married on 28-1-1973 when the latter was residing at 10-Shalimar Road, Lahore. The relations between the spouses became strained, which led the appellant to issue notice of `Talaq' which on 1-10-1980. On the failure of conciliation proceedings the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ward No,19, Railway Workshop, Lahore issued certificate of `Talaq' which was challenged by respondent No,1 through the aforementioned writ petition which was allowed and disposed of vide impugned order. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the "Certificate of Talaq" is revisable by the District Collector under the provisions of the Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, this Intra Court Appeal is hit by the proviso to subsection (3) of section 30 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant controverted the contention and submitted that the "Certificate of Talaq" issued by Chairman, Arbitration Council is not revisable, therefore, section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is not applicable.
5. We have perused the provisions of Family Laws Ordinance and find that no revision/appeal is provided against the issuance of "Certificate of Talaq", therefore, this appeal is not hit by section 3 of the Law Reforms A Ordinance, 1972. The preliminary objection being devoid of merit is therefore repelled.
6. Learned counsel for appellant pointed out that the respondent in the writ petition was a private person on the day the petition was filed, therefore, no writ could issue against private person. It was also submitted that the appellant was not cited as respondent in the writ and the impugned order was passed behind his back.
' It is true that in the writ petition Maulvi Ahmad Hassan Noori formerly Chairman, Union Council, Ward No,19, Lahore, was arrayed as the sole respondent. He was not a public functionary on the day the writ petition was filed as he was described as formerly Chairman. Undoubtedly no writ can issue against a private individual, the impugned order therefore, on this ground alone is untenable.
Furthermore, the impugned order is manifestly prejudicial to the interest of the appellant as he was not made party to the writ petition and was thus condemned unheard.
7. For the foregoing reasons and without dilating on the merits of the case we recall the impugned order dated 23-1-1988 passed by this Court and allow this appeal with no order as to costs.
C.M. Nos, 4389/90 and 4390/90:
8. As the Intra-Court Appeal arising out of the impugned order passed in the writ petition stands decided by us vide order of even date, no further action is called for in the matter. Disposed of.