' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This Infra-Court Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28-11-1981 whereby writ petition filed by the respondents/tenants was allowed and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 2-2-1978 decreeing the ejectment of the respondents from the suit land was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs-appellants brought a suit ag t Khan respondent No,1 and Muhammad, the predecessor of responde is Nos,2 to 8 herein for their ejectment from the land under their c tivation measuring 100 'Kanals comprising Square No3 situate in Chak o.25-A/10-R, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan. The suit was initially instil ted in the Court of the Assistant Collector First Grade, Khanewal but was later transferred to the Court of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Khanewal who dismissed the same by his order dated 13-12-1977. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed an application under Rule 7 (2) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977 before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan invoking his suo motu revisional jurisdiction for setting aside the impugned order of the A.C./Collector and passing an order/decree for ejectment of the respondents. The tenants took an objection before the Additional Commissioner that his revisional jurisdiction could be invoked only by an aggrieved tenant and that the suo motu revisional powers could not be exercised on a petition moved by the landlords. It seems that this objection did not prevail with the learned Additional Commissioner as he found on examining the case on merits and on appraising the evidence that the tenants had failed to pay the rent for Rabi 1974 and Kharif 1974 but this aspect which according to him was the very basis of the suit was not considered by the A.C./Collector and thus grave injustice was committed. The learned Additional Commissioner accordingly, in exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction, allowed the petition of the landlords, set aside the order of the Collector and passed the decree of ejectment against the respondents/tenants.
This was vide order dated 2-2-1978.
3. Feeling aggrieved of the order/decree passed by the Additional Commissioner, the respondents assailed its validity through a Constitutional petition contending that the Additional Commissioner could not legally entertain a revision petition filed by the landlords under rule 7 (2) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977 as the right to file a revision petition under the said provision was available only to an aggrieved tenant and not to a landlord. The landlords on the other hand, sought to rely upon suo motu powers of revision vesting in the Commissioner under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7. Learned Single Judge after examining the provisions of Rule 7 held that even suo motu powers could not be exercised to grant relief to a landlord and further observed that since the Additional Commissioner had passed the impugned order on a revision petition filed by the landlords, he could not be said to have passed it in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that the revision by a landlord was not competent under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 "because it is expressly prohibited by virtue of second proviso to sub-rule (2)". In this view of the matter, order of the Additional Commissioner dated 2-2- 1978 was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 28-11-1981 assailed in this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also the learned Additional Advocate- General. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/tenants and the learned Additional Advocate-General raised a preliminary objection as to the competency of the Intra-Court Appeal contending that since the order of the A.C./Collector was open to revision by the Commissioner in exercise of his suo motu powers under Rule 7 (2) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, Intl-a-Court Appeal a ainst the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Constitutional jurisdiction was not competent by virtue of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 as amended. Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance so far as is relevant for determining the point at issue reads as under:- "3. Appeal to High Court in certain cases.
(1)
(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) of Article 199 of the (Interim) Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, not being an order made under sub-paragraph (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 Corut 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)
(4)
' A plain reading of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance quite clearly shows that no appeal is available or competent before a Bench of two or more Judges of High Court against an order passed by a Single Judge of that Court in a Constitutional petition, if such petition arises out of any proceedings in which the law provided at least one appeal or one revision or one review against the original order. Now in the instant case, the relevant law governing the ejectment of tenants is contained in paragraph 25 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.
11.5 of 1972) and the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules framed by the Land Commission of the Punjab under paragraph 6 of the said Regulation for carrying out the purposes of sub-para. (1) of paragraph 25 of the Regulation. These Rules were initially framed in 1974 and were substituted in 1977. 1974 Rules made the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 regarding appeal, review and revision applicable mutatis mutandis to the orders passed under the said Rules. The Rules framed in 1977 (in supersession of 1974 Rules) provided for an appeal only against the order of the Assistant Collector of the First Grade before the Collector and conferred revisional powers on the Commissioner. Rule 7 of 1977 Rules is reproduced hereunder for the facility of reference:-- "7. Appeal and Revision.--(1) An appeal may be filed within fifteen days of the order of the Assistant Collector of the First Grade before the Collector whose order shall be final: ' Provided that in computing the period prescribed for filing an appeal under these rules the period spent in obtaining certified copy of the order of the Assistant Collector of the First Grade shall be excluded.
(2) The Commissioner may, at any time, of his own motion or on a petition made in that behalf to him by any aggrieved tenant within fifteen days of the impugned order, call for the record of any case disposed of by or proceedings pending with, any Assistant Collector of the First Grade or a Collector subordinate to him: ' Provided that in computing the period prescribed for filing a revision petition under these rules, the period spent in obtaining certified copy of the order against which revision is preferred, shall be excluded: ' Provided further that the right to file a revision petition against an order or proceedings shall be available to a tenant and not to a landlord.
(3) If after examination the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case to interfere with the proceedings or the order or decree, he shall within period of thirty days of calling for the record under the preceding sub-rule (2) pass such order as he deems fit after due notice to the parties likely to be affected.
(4) The order passed by the Commissioner in revision shall be final.
' Reference may also usefully be made to sub-para. (7) of paragraph 25 of MLR 115 which, too, confers revisional jurisdiction on the Board of Revenue. It reads as under:-- "(7) The Board of Revenue may at any time of its own motion or otherwise call for the record of any case or proceedings under this paragraph which is pending or in which a Collector or Commissioner has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such proceedings or order, and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit: ' Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub-paragraph revising or modifying an order affecting any person unless such person has been afforded an opportunity of being heard: ' Provided further that the record of any case or proceedings in which a Collector or Commissioner has passed an order shall not be called for under this sub-paragraph on the application of any aggrieved person made after the expiration of thirty days from the date of such order."
5. It is manifest from the provisions of Rule 7 afore-quoted that although the right to file a revision petition against an order or proceedings was available only to an aggrieved tenant, Additional Commissioner was also possessed of suo motu revisional jurisdiction. There can, however, be no doubt whatever about the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under paragraph 25 (7) of MLR-115 which it can exercise of its own motion or otherwise i,e,, at the instance of any of the parties affected by any order of the Collector or Commissioner. Supreme Court of Pakistan in the race of Lucas alias Luci and others v. S.M. Nasim, Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and another (PLD 1984 SC 227) while referring to Rule 7 (4) of 1977 Rules which provided that the order passed by the ammissioner in revision shall be final held that "even if it be assumed that under any rule, a final approach through revision before Board of Revenue in matters dealt with under para. 25 is prohibited or not provided or the rule is silent in that behalf, the provisions in sub-para. (7) of para. 25 make it amply clear that the Board of Revenue can "at any time of its own motion or otherwise rail for the records of any case or proceedings, "under this paragraph" which is pending or in which a Collector or Commissioner has passed an order, for purpose of satisfying itself regarding correctnes, legality or propriety of such proceeding or order".
6. Apart from what has been said above, even on the appellant's own showing, the impugned order of the Collector which was the original order was appealable before the Commissioner by virtue of Rule 7 of 1974 Rules whereby provisions of Tenancy Act relating to appeal, revision and review were made applicable to the orders passed under the said Rules. It is an admitted position that the ejectment suit in the present case was filed on 2-11-1974 when the Rules of 1974 were in force. Law is fairly well settled that the rights of the parties are decided according to law as it existed when the action was initiated and any alteration/amendment made therein during the pendency of the action does not affect them unless the new law in express terms applies to the pending actions or it merely affects procedure. It is an established law that the appeal is not a matter of procedure but is a substantive right. In this view of the matter, the right of appeal provided by 1974 Rules was available to the appellants when their suit was dismissed by the A.C./Collector on 13-12-1977. Refer Mahmood Shah etc. v. Additional Settlement Commissioner, Revenue etc. (PLD 4.979 Lahore 709).
7. In view of the position afores stated, the law applicable in the instant case provided at least one appeal and one revision against the order of the A.C./Collector. That being so, the bar contained in the provisions to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is eminently attracted to this case. Resultantly, we hold that this Intra-Court Appeal is not competent and the same is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.