2010 GBLR 558 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB, J.

Petitioners preferred a review petition under Order V Rule 3 of Supreme Appellate Court Rules, 2008, whereby the petitioners challenged the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 22-6-2010, on the ground that the impugned order along with letter dated 21-6-2010 written by I.G.P. Gilgit-Baltistan, to the Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan,' recommending ante date promotion of Mr. Muhammad Raiz D.S.P. with effect from 20-4-2006, may kindly be set aside, as the said letter has been issued without any justification and lawful grounds. After perusal of the review petition, the Registrar of this Court has taken legal objections vide order dated 1-7-2007 with the direction, to remove the deficiencies/objections and be submitted the same within three days. Replication received through Advocate-on-Record on 2-7-2010, wherein they have tried their best to remove the legal objections raised by the Registrar of this Court. The reply submitted by Advocate-on-Record is not in consonance with the parameters of objections raised by the office. Therefore, the Registrar asked to the party to prefer an appeal, if aggrieved from the objections raised under the Supreme Appellate Court Rules, 2008. Resultantly they preferred an appeal under Order V Sub-Rule (3) of Supreme Appellate Court, Rules, 2008, the same appeal has been entrusted to this Chamber by his lordship Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Chief Judge, for hearing and disposal. Arguments heard at length. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably, I came to the conclusion, that the appeal preferred by the applicants against the legal objections raised by the Registrar of this Court is not maintainable, hence liable to be rejected on the following grounds: (i) The contempt petition which is sub-judice for adjudication, is a matter between the court and contemnor, third party would not intervence in the contempt petition. Moreover, the impugned order passed by Division Bench of this court is purely interlocutory in nature and not the final one. The review petition filed by the petitioners against the order is not competent until and unless it can attain finality and affect the precious rights of any aggrieved party. (ii) That when I visited the order of this court dated 22-6-2010, it is crystal clear and un-ambiguous which clearly transpires "that without prejudice to the rights of any person the case of the petitioner may be considered in accordance with law." The apprehension of the petitioner at this stage is pre-mature one. The second and most important legal point is that the petitioners are not the party in the contempt proceedings before this court and they are not competent to file the instant petition. However, if they aggrieved from the order passed by competent authority in pursuance of this Court order dated 22-6-2010, the said party may avail remedy as provided under the law before the competent forum. What has been discussed above, this appeal has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed. File be consigned to record. H.B.T./11/Glt Appeal dismissed.