' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal No,380-L of 1995 arises from the facts that Ghaffar Hussain petitioner with the prior permission of District Magistrate, Sahiwal, respondent No,1, established Halting Station and Parking Place in his premises in front of Al-Fateh Travel Service, Multan Road, Sahiwal. The permission was subsequently withdrawn by respondent No,1 on 22-11-1993. The petitioner filed Writ Petition in Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, questioning the legality o' the order dated 22-11-1993 of the District Magistrate, against respondent No,1 and Secretary, Road Transport, Multan Division, Multan respondent No,2 which is still pending.
2. On 28-5-1994, Ch. Sultan Mahtnood, respondent No,3 filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. For impleading him as a party in the Writ Petition on the ground that he was facing great financial loss in his business and hardship in the running of his Petrol Pump on account of establishment of Halting point and Parking place of the petitioner. This application was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 12-2-1995. The petitioner was directed to amend the Writ Petition and implead the applicant (Ch. Sultan Mahmood) as a party in the Writ Petition.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Intra-Court Appeal which was dismissed vide impugned order on the short ground of non-maintainability. The High Court was of the view that Intra-Court Appeal was not competent against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge during the hearing of a Constitution petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Bashir A. Mujahid, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that in view of the provisions of section 3(1) of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act VIII of 1972), the Division Bench of the High Court was fully justified in holding the Intra-Court Appeal of the petitioner as not maintainable. Relevant provision i,e, section 3(1) reads as follows:- "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."
4. Learned Single Judge has simply allowed the application of respondent No,3 for impleading him as a party in the writ petition. The main writ petition is still pending. The well settled practice of this Court is not to interfere in interim orders unless exceptional ground exists necessitating interference in the interest of justice which is non-existent in this case.
5. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.