' This is landlord's second appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, whereby lower appellate Court's order dated 2041-1977 has been brought under challenge. The learned Additional District Judge held that appeal against order of the learned Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte order of eviction against the respondents and proceeding with the case on merits, was not appealable. Learned Counsel has contended that the reliance of the learned Additional District Judge on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim v.
Muhammad Hussain (1) is misplaced. He has also contended that in so far as the appellant/landlord is concerned, the order of the leaned Rent Controller should be treated as final because he having once won the case has again been relegated to the original trial stage. He has relied on two cases decided after the decision in Ibrahim's case t Muhammad Umar and another v.
Dr. Amina Ashraf (2) and Igbal Ahmed Malik v. Surraya Anwar Sheikh (3).
2. Although the facts of the Karachi case are distinguishable, yet it is important to note that at page 306 of the report the following observations from the ruling in the ease of Ibrahim were quoted in order to show that the order under discussion in the said Karachi case, was not interlocutory : "It would be idle to contend that as respects cases falling under any of the above four sections, subsection (1) of section 15 postulates appeal in relation to a matter which is not germane to the substance of the dispute, but which is merely incidental or collateral to the dispute and which has been disposed of by an interlocutory order. For instance, in any such case objection may be taken against the territorial jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and a finding as to the existence of such jurisdiction, cannot on any discoverable principle be made a subject-matter of appeal apart from appeal from the whole gamut of the dispute. On a parity of reasoning the same will be true of the interlocutory order in the instant case, which was made to dispose of a collateral matter in the case."
' It will not be out of place to make reference to another very important observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim. It was observed that "Fragmentary decisions of this character have been described by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Nanhelal v. Umrao Singh (4) as most inconvenient (which) tend to delay administration of justice".
(1) PLD 1975 SC 457
(2) PLD 1977 Ear. 305
(3) PhD 1977 Lab: 409
(4) AIR 1931 P C 33
3. In the present case the interlocutory order is such that even if it would have been passed by a Court of general jurisdiction (civil Court) as distinguished from the Rent Controller, an appeal under Order XLIII, C. P. C. Against acceptance of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree (order) would not have been competent. The Lahore ruling cited by the learned counsel is also of no help to the learned counsel. It was a case in which the tenant in circumstances, similar to those in the present case, had sought restoration of possession and it was held that the High Court could, acting on the principle underlying section 144 read with Order XLI, rule 33, C. P. C. Pass a proper order. The question as to whether orders like the one impugned in this appeal should be brought under challenge before the final decision is taken by the learned Rent Controller, was discussed in Mrs. Feroza Aslam v. Mr. Muhammad Akhtar and another (Writ Petition No, 375/77), decided on 23- 2-1977. It was observed therein as follows "It cannot be doubted that a final order of dismissal of the landlord's application for eviction has not yet been passed. The Rent Controller has commenced the proceedings afresh after setting aside the ex parte order. If and when the Rent Controller passes a foal order dismissing the petitioner's application, he will have a right of appeal; and it is Lot denied that in that appeal all interlocutory orders which if they are not independently appealable under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, can be brought under challenge. Looked at in this context it cannot be said that the petitioner would have no remedy against the order which has been brought under challenge in this writ petition."
3. The same case was taken in Intra-Court Appeal No, 22 of 1977 before a Division Bench of this Court. The appeal was dismissed with the following observations "We are not impressed by these submissions. The learned Rent Controller had come to the conclusion that in the circumstances of the case, it was necessary to associate the respondent- tenant, in the proceedings. This conclusion of the Rent Controller as well as the circumstances in which it was reached will be open to review on grounds of fact and law, if and when appeal against the final order is preferred. We would not, like the learned Judge in Chambers, endorse interference at this intermediary stage of the proceedings and would rather prefer an adjudication on merits than on technicalities which too in their own domain, and at proper time are reviewable. The appeal is therefore, dismissed in limine."
4. After hearing the learned counsel I find that the order of the learned lower appellate Court, dismissing the appellant's first appeal as incompetent is unexceptionable.
5. There is no force in this appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.