P L D 2016 Lahore 514 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Appellant Versus Ex-Officio JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2016 Lahore 514 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Appellant Versus Ex-Officio JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2016 Lahore 514 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2016 Lahore 514 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2016 Lahore 514 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Appellant Versus Ex-Officio JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mrs. Shehla Chohan, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3(2)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199(1)(b)(i)
Writ of habeas corpus was filed which was dismissed by the Single Judge of High Court
High Court could issue a writ of habeas corpus and no appeal would lie against an order passed under Art.199(b)(i) of the Constitution
Intra court appeal being not maintainable was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
Through the instant ICA the appellant has challenged the legality and validity of order dated 19.10.2015 passed by learned Single Judge-in-Chamber whereby writ petition filed by Muhammad Arshad was dismissed.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. We noted that a petition filed by Naeem Shahzad for the recovery/production of his granddaughter Maheen Shehzadi and grandson Bilal Butt from the alleged improper custody of Neelam and Zaheer. The said petition was accepted and the custody of the minors was handed over to Naeem Shahzad. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, a writ petition was filed which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber vide order dated 19.10.2015.
4. Firstly, we would like to examine the question of maintainability of the instant ICA in the light of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, (XXII of 1972). So, for reference Section 3 is reproduced as under: "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 lies to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court under (clause (1) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan) not being an Order made under sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of that clause....... A bare reading of the above quoted provisions of law clearly indicates that in terms of subsection (2) of section 3 of the Act ibid, no appeal lies against an order passed under sub-paragraph (b)(i) of clause (1) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. It is appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the above Article hereunder: "199 Jurisdiction of High Court ...... (1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law..... (a)............... (i)............... (ii)............... (b) on the application of any person, make an order.... (i) directing that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner."
5. From the above provision of law it is crystal clear that this Court can issue a writ of habeas corpus and no appeal is competent against an order made under the above provision of law as section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 exclude the right of appeal.
6. For what has been discussed above, the instant appeal is not maintainable in view of section 3(2) of the law Reforms Ordinance, (XII of 1972).Resultantly, the Intra Court appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed in limine. ZC/M-28/L Appeal dismissed.