1994 PLP 1288 (CLC)

"The petitioners are allowed six months' time from today to vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent provided they pay rent regularly. In case they fail to vacate the premises within the period specified above, writ of eviction shall be issued without notice to them." 3.The respondent filed execution application being No. 20 of 1993. The appellants filed objections stating therein that the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not executable for the reasons that it is no more on the Statute book and ceased to have legal effect w.e.f. 1‑4‑1992 in consequence of Federal Shariat Court having ruled it repugnant to Islam on 1‑10‑1991 (PLD 1992 FSC 286). The Controller dismissed the objections on the ground that the plea was not taken before the Supreme Court and time granted for six months has also expired. By order dated 10‑8‑1993 writ of ejectment was issued. The appellants have challenged the impugned orders dated 10‑7 -1993 and 10‑8‑1993. 4. 1 have heard Muhammad Younus Soorty, the appellant No. 1 and Mr. Rehmat Elahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. I have perused the impugned orders.

5. The appellant No. 1 raised the same contention as was raised before me and before the Controller. I have perused the order of the Supreme Court. A perusal thereof would .show that the appellants did not raise this plea before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. .

6. It is advantageous to reproduce Article 203‑D (IA)(1) and (2) and proviso of the Constitution which read:‑‑ "(IA) Where the Court takes up the examination of any law or provision of law under clause (1) and such law or provision of law appears to it to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, the Court shall cause to be given to the Federal Government in the case of a law with respect to a matter in the Federal Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List, or to the Provincial Government in the case of a law with respect to a matter not enumerated in the either of those Lists, a notice specifying the particular provisions that .appear to it to be so repugnant, and afford to such Government adequate opportunity to have its point of view placed before the Court. (2) If the Court decides that any law or provisions of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, it shall set out in its decision: (a) The reasons for its holding that opinion; and (b) the extent to which such law or provision is so repugnant; and specify the day on which the decision shall take effect: Provided that no such decision shall be deemed to take effect before the expiration of the period within which an appeal therefrom may be preferred to the Supreme Court or, where an appeal has been so preferred, before the disposal of such appeal."

7. A bare reading of` the proviso would show that the decision of the Federal Shariat Court would not take effect before the expiration of the period within which an appeal thereof may be preferred to the Supreme Court or, where an appeal has been so preferred, before the disposal of the such appeal.

8. It is not in dispute that against the decision of the Federal Shariat Court, the Government of Sindh has filed Shariat Appeal No. 61 of 1992, the Federation of Pakistan has also filed Shariat Appeal No. 64 of 1992. Besides these two Shariat Appeals, registered as Shariat Appeals Nos. 65, 66 and 67 of 1992. All these appeals are still pending. On preferring appeals the decision shall not take effect till the disposal of the appeals.

9. In that view of the matter the contention of the appellants is devoid of force and the same is rejected. The appeal is dismissed in limine.

10. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 12‑12‑1993 dismissing the appeal on conclusion of arguments. AA./M‑1928/K Appeal dismissed.