' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby the IntraCourt Appeal filed by him under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 was held to be not maintainable; the main reason being that the order of the Assistant Registrar impugned in the writ petition was revisable by the Registrar or the Provincial Government under section 9-A of the said Ordinance.
2. The petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs, 20,000 from the Cooperative Societies of Village Mukhtar Miani which became subject-matter of litigation on question of his liability. However, the Assistant Registrar initiated proceedings under Martial Law Order (MLO) 241. Warrants of attachment were issued on 6-3-1972. On 9-3-1972 notice for repayment of Rs, 72,263.16 was issued requiring the petitioner to pay the said amount by 10-3-1972. On 10-3-1972 the Assistant Registrar auctioned the property ignoring the petitioner's application challenging the action as mala fide.
The auction was confirmed on 14-3-1972 and it has been alleged by the petitioner that the property worth lacs of rupees was -sold for Rs, 5,000 to one Syed Inam Shah. The other mortgaged property, namely, a factory, was also auctioned. The petitioner challenged the auction proceedings by filing civil suit which was withdrawn and a writ petition (W.P. No, 5 of 1975) was filed on 13-1-1975. It was dismissed on 4-4-1987. The petitioner filed ICA, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment for the reason that section 9-A was added to Ordinance XIV of 1966 providing for remedy of revision and therefore ICA was hit by proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that action had been initiated under MLO 241 and West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 and in none of these statutes, appeal is provided. The learned counsel further contended that section 9-A provided for a revision, but the proviso to section 3 (2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance at the material time-barred ICAs in cases where the said appeals arise out of proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal. It was pointed out that after the word 'appeal' words' or one revision or one review' were added by Act VI of 1975, gazetted on 17-1-1975 and therefore at the material time when the writ petition was filed, only such appeals were barred in which under the relevant statute one appeal was provided. We grant leave to consider these questions. It is, however, made clear that the leave has been granted on the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which could not immediately be controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the petition had been filed before the amendment was made in section 3(2) on 17-1-1975. If on a later date it transpires that the writ petition had been filed on or after 17-1-1975, the leave shall be withdrawn.