1979 PLP 649 (CLC)

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)

S. 15(4)-Second app.-al under S. 15(4) competent against order passed in first appeal--First appeal against ejectment order withdrawn by counsel on compromise-Impugned order being not an order disposing of first appeal but an order refusing to recall order made in first app-.al-Such order, held, does not qualify for being subject-matter of second appeal and second appeal not competent.- [Second appeal]. M. S. Shad for Appellant. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the respondent, Mahboob Elahi moved an application, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for ejectment of the appellant, Murad Ali from a house. The Rent Controller, who heard the application, passed an order of ejectment against the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by his order, the appellant went in appeal before the District Judge but as a compromise bad been effected between the parties, the appellant withdrew the appeal. It was, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn on 29th April 1976. Thereafter, on 26th May 1976, the appellant made an application to the learned District Judge stating that the compromise had been entered into by his counsel without obtaining his consent. He, therefore, prayed that the order by which his appeal had been dismissed be recalled. 2. The view taken by the learned District Judge on the aforesaid application of the appellant was that as the vakalatnama filed by the appellant's counsel authorised him to compromise on his behalf, his learned counsel was competent to enter into the compromise in question. He also noted that the petition made to him for disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise was signed by his counsel and that he (counsel) had also appended his signatures in the margin of order, dated 29th April 1976, whereby the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The plea of the appellant that he did not authorise his counsel to enter into the compromise, therefore, did not find favour with the learned District Judge. As a result, he dismissed the application with costs, by his order, dated the 23rd of December 1978. It is against this order of the learned District Judge that the appellant has come up in second appeal to this Court. 3. According to subsection (4) of section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, a second appeal can be preferred against a order passed on a first appeal arising out of a rent case. The order impugned in this appeal, however, does not belong to that category of order in as much as it is not the order by which the first appeal had been disposed of but is the one whereby the learned District Judge had dismissed his application for re-calling the order made on his first appeal. Thus, the order assailed herein does not qualify for being the subject matter of a second appeal and as such the present appeal is not competent. 4. The appeal is, therefore. dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.