2026 PLP 917 (MLD)

Khadim Hussain Soomro, J.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant Intra Court appeal on the premise that the appellant had earlier filed a representation, placed on the record, which was dismissed, therefore the present intra court appeal is barred. The counsel relied upon the 2020 CLD 1462, 2018 PLC (C.S), 2020 CLD 1462, 2003 PLC (C.S) 414.

2. Conversely, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the said representation was not a remedy provided by the governing law and rules, hence the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is not attracted.

3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

4. The proviso to section 3(2) bars an intra court appeal where the writ petition arises out of proceedings in which the law applicable provided at least one appeal, revision, or review against the original order. The emphasis is, thus, upon the existence of a remedy provided by law. Section 3 of the Law Reform Ordinance, 1972 is reproduced for the purpose of clarity and convince. "[

3. Appeal to High Court in certain cases.____(1) 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. (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 2 [clause (1) of Article 2[199] of the 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 Court under Article 2[199] arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal 3[or one revision or one review] to any court, tribunal or authority against the original order. [Junderlining for emphasis] (3) No appeal shall lie under subsection (1) or subsection (2) from an interlocutory order or an order which does not dispose of the entire case before the Court. (4) Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall be construed as affecting- (a) any appeal under the provisions of the Letters Patent applicable to a High Court or under section 102 of the Code of Civil High Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), which was pending immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance; or the (b) any appeal or petition for leave to appeal from a decree, judgment or order of a single Judge of a High Court made to the Supreme Court before the commencement of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972.]"

5. The main part of subsection (2) gives a right of appeal (Intra Court Appeal or ICA) to a Division Bench against an order of a Single Judge passed under Article 199 of the Constitution. However, the proviso places an important limitation on that right. Plain meaning of the proviso, states that the appeal to the Division Bench shall not be available if the writ petition itself arose from proceedings where the relevant law already provided at least one remedy in the form of an appeal, revision, or review before any court, tribunal, or authority against the original order. (underlining for emphasis). In simple terms, if the original statute governing the dispute already gives a remedy of appeal, revision, or review, and despite that remedy a writ petition was filed, then the order of the Single Judge in that writ cannot be further appealed before a Division Bench. The object of this proviso is to prevent a second layer of appeal within the High Court where the statute itself already provides an appellate or revisional remedy. It discourages bypassing statutory forums and prevents multiplication of proceedings.

6. The expression "no statutory remedy" means that the law governing the subject matter of the dispute does not provide any mechanism of appeal, revision, or review against the original order passed by the authority. In other words, the statute under which the authority acted is silent as to any further forum or procedure through which the aggrieved person may challenge that order. Where the law itself does not create such a remedy, the affected person cannot be expected to pursue a non-existent forum, and the only available course is to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article

199. In the case of The Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) v. Ramzan Sugar Mills Limited, 2020 CLD 1462 the Honourable Lahore High Court reiterated that where the relevant law provides an appeal, revision or review, the Intra Court appeal is barred. The same judgment, relying upon "SME Bank Limited v. Izharul Haq" (2019 SCMR 939), observed that where the proceedings from which the writ petition has arisen provided for either review, revision or appeal, the remedy of Intra Court Appeal will not be available. It is equally settled that the expression representation, in appropriate cases, may partake the character of an appellate remedy, if it is a statutory remedy to a higher forum and entails appellate type scrutiny. In Haji Ahmad Khan (2018 PLC 36) the Court held that under the doctrine of pith and substance, the representation could be treated as an appeal if filed to the higher forum, and where such remedy exists, the Intra Court Appeal would be barred by the proviso. The Court further held that representation under section 32 of the Punjab Ombudsman Act, 1997 to the Governor was, in fact, an appeal, as the Governor was acting as an appellate forum, and accordingly dismissed the intra court appeal as not maintainable.

7. Similarly, in Muhammad Shakoor (2003 PLC 414), the Intra Court Appeal was held to be not maintainable where the appellant had himself invoked the forum of the Chairman FPSC by filing a representation in the nature of review, participated in the proceedings, and after rejection could not resile from that position, applying the principles of approbate and reprobate, waiver and estoppel. The ratio, thus, proceeds on the footing that the representation was treated as a remedy of review like character, which the appellant himself invoked, attracting estoppel. However, the above line case law does not lay down that every administrative request or discretionary representation, without statutory foundation, would per se constitute an appeal, revision, or review so as to attract the bar under the proviso. The controlling test remains whether the alleged remedy is provided by the law applicable to the proceedings, or, in pith and substance, constitutes an appellate or review forum conferred by statute.

8. In the present case, the respondent has been unable to point out any enabling provision of the governing statute or the rules under which the representation relied upon could be treated as a statutory appeal, revision, or review against the original order. In contradiction to Haji Ahmad Khan, where section 32 itself conferred the statutory representation to a higher forum and the Court treated it as an appellate remedy and unlike Muhammad Shakoor where the appellant himself invoked a review like forum and was held bound by waiver and estoppel, the representation in the present case is shown to be merely an administrative request, not contemplated by the governing law as a formal remedy against the original order. Once the representation is not traceable to any statutory provision, it cannot be equated with the remedies contemplated by the proviso to section 3(2). Consequently, one of the essential preconditions for attracting the bar is missing, namely that the law applicable provided at least one appeal, revision, or review against the original order. In such circumstances, the general rule under section 3(2) remains operative and the intra court appeal is competent.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary objection as to maintainability is overruled. The instant Intra Court Appeal is held to be maintainable and shall be proceeded with on merits. Office shall fix the case for hearing in the ordinary course. MH/21/Isl. Objection overruled.