1993 PLP 1473 (SCMR)

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J: ‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, dated 13‑7‑1992, whereby the learned Judge, in the pending Civil Revision Application No.804/86 appointed an Advocate as the Commissioner to inspect the premises in suit and to report whether any portion thereof had been damaged during the current seasonal rains and that the premises needed immediate repairs. The learned Judge in Chambers appeared to have passed earlier in the above Civil Revision Application, an interim order of status quo against respondents 3 to 'S on the application of petitioner which is operative. Respondents 3 to 5 accordingly moved Misc. Application Nos. 225‑C‑92 and 267‑C‑92 before the learned Judge in Chambers for‑ early disposal of revision application and during the course of hearing of these applications, contended that on account of status quo order in the case. they are facing hardships as the premises in their possession has become dilapidated due to rains and they prayed for modification of the status quo order to the extent that they may be allowed to carry out the repair of the premises in order to keep the premises in its original condition. This prayer of the respondents was opposed by the petitioner whereupon the learned Judge appointed a Commissioner to inspect the premises in suit and report whether any portion thereof was damaged on account of rains and it required immediate repairs. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the learned Judge in Chambers had no power to appoint a Commissioner as the provisions of Rule 9 of Order XXVI, C.P.C. were not applicable to the proceedings before the learned Judge in Chambers. The contention of the learned counsel has no force. Apart from the provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 9, C.P.C., the Court has inherent powers to pass any order in a case, where the circumstances of the case so required to do complete justice between the parties and for which no specific provision existed in the Code: The rules of procedure are meant to advance the course of justice and they cannot be pleaded to obstruct the same. The learned Judge in Chambers having granted status quo order in the case, on the application of petitioner, was fully competent to modify that order if the circumstances of the case so justified and for that purpose the learned Judge could pass any incidental order, including the order to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the site, to satisfy himself if the condition of the premises was such that it required modification of the status quo order passed in the case. The fact that there was no specific provision available in the Civil Procedure Code, authorizing the learned Judge to pass such an order could not debar the High Court of its inherent power to pass an order to do full justice between the parties in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Such power could be exercised, in the absence of a specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, under section 151, C.P.C. There is no merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. M.BA./S‑746/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Petition dismissed.