' Through this writ petition a landlord has called in question an order passed by a learned Rent Controller whereby after setting aside an earlier ex parte ejectment order passed against the respondent/tenant, he has proceeded to hear the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel has contended that the Rent Controller bad no jurisdiction to set aside the ex- parte order and that an appeal against such an order being not competent the landlord has moved this Court in writ jurisdiction.
2. 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 final order dismissing the petitioner' application, he will have a right of appeal, and it is not 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. Learned counsel has also contended that the petitioner would suffer unnecessary harm through the conduct of proceedings by a forum which according to him, has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter any further. Similar situation was visualized and arguments addressed in the case of Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (1) their Lordships were pleased to observe as follows "Reference has been made to these dates to underline the unfortunate fact that it has taken almost 10 years to bring the matter to this Court for its decision on a purely preliminary point, leaving the main controversy about the liability of the respondent for ejectment to be determined in the fresh round of litigation between the parties. Fragmentary decisions of this character have been described by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Nannelal v. Umrao Singh as most inconvenient (which) tend to delay administration of justice."
' I also took note of a similar situation in case of Rashid Ahmad v. Soot! Muhammad Saleem and another (2) and relying on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ibrahim have held that if the appeals against the similar orders are not competent, on the basis of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the writ petitions also, would not be entertained. The party aggrieved in such like situation should wait till a final order is passed against it and then file an appeal under section 15 of the Ordinance.
(4) No justification has been made out for taking a different view in this case. This petition, accordingly, is dismissed in limine.
(1) PLD 1975 SC 457
(2) PLD 1976 Lah. 1450