2019 PLP 144 (CLD)
STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Attorney — Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 144 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Attorney — Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 144 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 144 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 144 (CLD) (STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Attorney — Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Liaquat Ali Butt for Respondent No.2.
- 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that claim before the Insurance Tribunal was filed under section 122 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 (Ordinance) and against the final judgment of the Tribunal, the remedy of appeal is provided under section 124 of the Ordinance, therefore, any order arising out of these proceedings before Tribunal, the ICA is not maintainable in view of proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (Ordinance 1972).
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 122 & 124
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3
Appellant impugned order whereby its Constitutional petition against order of Insurance Tribunal was dismissed
In the present case, remedy of appeal was available to appellant under S. 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 and Constitutional petition was filed by appellant against order whereby his claim was rejected by Insurance Tribunal
Since remedy of appeal was available, intra-court appeal was not maintainable
Intra-court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers dated 20.5.2016, whereby the constitutional petition, filed by the appellant, (against the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by the Insurance Tribunal dismissing the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.), has been dismissed in limine.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that claim before the Insurance Tribunal was filed under section 122 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 (Ordinance) and against the final judgment of the Tribunal, the remedy of appeal is provided under section 124 of the Ordinance, therefore, any order arising out of these proceedings before Tribunal, the ICA is not maintainable in view of proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (Ordinance 1972).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that claim filed by the respondent No.2 before the Insurance Tribunal was totally incompetent, therefore, learned Tribunal was not justified to dismiss the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., hence argued that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers is not sustainable and ICA is maintainable.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of this appeal.
5. It is an admitted position between the parties that claim was filed by respondent No.2 under section 122 of the Ordinance and that against the final order passed by the Insurance Tribunal under section 122 of the Ordinance, the remedy of appeal is available under section 124 of the Ordinance. It is also not disputed that constitutional petition was filed against order dated 7.4.2016 dismissing the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. by the Insurance Tribunal in above proceedings. Being appeal available in the proceedings pending before Insurance Tribunal, the present appeal filed against the order dated 20.5.2016 of the learned Single Judge in Chambers is not maintainable. In this regard, reliance is also placed on judgment reported as Muhammad Aslam Sukhera and others v. Collector Land Acquisition, Lahore, Improvement Trust, Lahore and another [PLD 2005 SC 45]. The argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Insurance Tribunal had no jurisdiction, is totally irrelevant for the purpose of maintainability of this appeal under proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of Ordinance, 1972. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. KMZ/S-53/L Appeal dismissed.