P L D 1992 Lahore 342 (PLP)

Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Rr. 3, 5 & 6‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 198 ‑‑‑ Petition under Rr.3 & 6, Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981 read with S.151, C.P.C. for entertainment of Constitutional petition at the Principal Seat of the High Court ‑‑‑ Contention that provision of Rules framed under Art.198(6) of the Constitution laying down the procedure for filing petitions at the Principal Seat and the Benches could not abridge the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain at the principal seat a petition under Art.199 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the position that the controversy pertained to a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of a Bench and that the suit had been mala fide filed by respondent at Bahalwainagar (Bahawalpur Bench) although the said respondent had its own business at Lahore ‑‑‑ Held, that regulation of institution of cases under Art.199 of the Constitution and hearing thereof at the benches and the principal seat through Rules in no manner would abridge the jurisdiction of High Court under Art.1.99 of the Constitution ‑‑‑ Petition which questioned the validity of orders of Courts functioning within the jurisdiction of Bahawalpur Bench, shall have to be filed at the Bench before the same could be asked to be transferred to the principal seat. 40 In the present case petition under Rules 3 and 6 of the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benhces) Rules, 1981 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed for entertainment of the accompanying writ petition, at the Principal Seat. It was contended that the provisions of rules framed under Article 198(6) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 laying down the procedure for filing of petitions at the Principal Seat and the Benches could not abridge the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain at the Principal Seat a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, notwithstanding the position that the controversy pertained to a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of a bench and that the suit had been mala fide filed by respondent at BahawaInagar although the said respondent had its own business at Labor‑. lield, rules framed under Article 198(6) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were not in conflict with the provisions contained in Article 199 of the Constitution. Article 199, inter alia, provides that a High Court, on the application of an aggrieved party, may give the relief provided for in the said Article. The Bench of the High Court was as much the High Court as the Principal Seat was. The Regulation of institution of cases under Article 199 of the Constitution and hearing thereof at the Benches and the Principal Seat through rules in no manner would abridge the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. Rule 3 of the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules 1981, specifically provides that all matters arising within the area assigned to a Bench shall be filed before and disposed of by that Bench. Rule 5 empowers the Chief Justice to transfer any pending proceedings at the Principal Seat or a Bench to another Bench or the Principal Seat of the High Court. This of necessity implies that a case arising within the jurisdiction of a Bench shall have to be instituted at the Bench before the exercise of jurisdiction under rule 5 can be invoked. In the present case petition under Article 199 of the Constitution questioned the validity of orders of Courts functioning within the jurisdiction of Bahawalpur Bench, the petition shall have to be filed at the Bench before the same could be asked to be transferred to the Principal Seat. Rules had no application to the petition in the present case as it related to the powers of the Chief Justice to.determine cases or class of cases, which may be disposed of at the Principal Seat. The application as presented requesting for direct enterainment at the Principal Seat of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, pertaining to a controversy arising within the jurisdiction of a Bench being misconceived did not merit to be allowed.