1996 PLP 1714 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Art. 114‑‑‑Estoppel‑‑‑No estoppel against law. Muhammad Akram Sheikh for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Anwar alongwith Raja Shafqat Abbasi for Respondent. Revision Petitions No.429, 430 and 431 of 1995 have been laid before me in following circumstances. On 11‑1‑1995, Sardar Farooq Ahmed Khan Legari, President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan/herein respondent/plaintiff, brought a suit for damages against Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif/herein petitioner/defendant in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad. This suit was contested. Necessary issues were framed. Some evidence of the plaintiff/respondent was recorded and the case was fixed for the statement. of respondent/plaintiff on 14‑12‑1995. The petitioner filed four separate applications for the purpose of summoning of record mentioned therein and witnesses fully described therein. These applications were contested and rejected by learned Senior Civil Judge on 6‑12‑1995. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner filed three Civil Revisions No.914,. 915 and 916 of 1995 at the Principal Seat of Lahore High Court. These came up for hearing before my learned brother Munir A. Sheikh, J. on 10‑12‑1995 and were sent to my lord the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, Lahore. In this way, these petitions came up for hearing before my lord the Chief Justice on 13‑12‑1995. These petitions were returned to petitioner and he was directed to file them in Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi Bench. This happened vide order dated 13‑12‑1995.

2. Pursuant to the above order, petitioner filed these petitions at Rawalpindi Bench which were renumbered as 429, 430 and 431 of 1995. These petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court comprising of my learned brothers Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti and Muhammad Jaffar Hashmi, JJ. on 9‑1‑1996. On that date, it is stated at Bar that my learned brother Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, J. had stated that since he had been the Public Prosecutor against the petitioner before elevation, therefore, it was not proper for him to sit in the Bench. It is to be noted over here that this part of the facts was not recorded by the Division Bench. However, there is no dispute about that statement attributed to my learned brother Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, J. In the context of above, the petitioner filed three applications for the transfer of afore stated revision petitions from that Division Bench to another Division Bench at Principal Seat. These applications carried Nos. 17‑C, 18‑C and 19‑C of 1996. These came up before my lord the Chief Justice on 11‑1‑1996. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he be permitted to convert revision petitions as applications for re hearing/reconsideration/review and the matter be laid before me, who was seized of the main suit in pursuance of the order of transfer passed by my lord the Chief Justice. Raja Muhammad Anwar, the learned counsel for the respondent, at that juncture, stated that the transfer applications, in view of the above statement, had been rendered infructuous. In that scenario of the case, my Lord the Chief Justice passed the following order:‑‑ "

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused their statements. As the case has been transferred to the original jurisdiction of the High Court by consent order dated 13‑12‑1995 passed in Transfer Application No.768/C of 1995 whereby the parties agreed that the trial be concluded at the Rawalpindi Bench of this Court within three months, it is desirable to avoid technicalities in the interest of expeditious disposal of the suit. It is, therefore, directed that Revision Petitions Nos.429/95, 430/95 and 431/95 pending before the Division Bench of the Rawalpindi Bench of this Court be laid before my learned brother Mian Allah Nawaz, J., at the Rawalpindi Bench on ' 16‑1‑1996 for appropriate orders, in the light of the statement made by Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate, learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner. " As a result of the above order, these petitions have been laid before me.

3. The question regarding my power to deal with the matter cropped up at the very outset. Raja Muhammad Anwar, the learned counsel for the respondent made the following submissions: Firstly; That revision petitions were/are pending before Division Bench at Rawalpindi Bench. According to the learned counsel, there can be no dispute with the proposition that a case assigned to Division Bench, cannot be withdrawn and entrusted to another Bench. This rule, according to learned counsel, is well‑settled and is in line with the concept of independence of superior judiciary. Explaining this point further, the learned counsel contended that by the statement made by Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, he has withdrawn his revision petitions and accordingly the Hon'ble Chief Justice has sent these matters to this Hon'ble Bench to treat them as petitions for reconsideration/review and pass appropriate order being a Trial Judge, in accordance with law Secondly; That in exercise of the powers under rule 10 of the High Court Establishment of Benches Rules, 1981, this Court is competent to pass the order and that too in line with the order of the Chief Justice. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, maintained that the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent before this Court were not raised before the learned Chief Justice and so now the learned counsel for the respondent was precluded to raise these questions. Furthermore, the technical objection, with regard to my jurisdiction, in special circumstances of the case and commitment of the parties to conclude the trial within three months, should not be given much importance and this Court should proceed further to decide these revision petitions in the light of the orders of the learned Chief Justice. Moreover, this learned Court having been entrusted with these petitions may also hear them as petitions for reconsideration and review of impugned order and appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with the merits of the case. 4. . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, carefully attended to their submission and have examined the order of my lord the Chief Justice. From the above, it appears that the revision petitions filed by the petitioner are still pending adjudication before the Division Bench of Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi Bench. Neither, these petitions were withdrawn from that Bench nor they were entrusted to me. It is necessary to mention that one of the Members of the Bench, i.e. my brother Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, J. 'expressed his unwillingness to sit in the Bench. The question as to whether these revision petitions can be withdrawn, is of not much importance and was not agitated before me in depth, although reference was made to Abdul Aziz Hamad Al- Gosaibi v. PIA Corporation (PLD 1995 Karachi 566) to contend that my lord the Chief Justice has no power to withdraw the case assigned to one Bench and give it to other Bench. This question was so half‑heartedly argued that I am not able to dilate any more. The fact remains that these revision petitions originated from an interim order passed in the suit where the amount claimed is; Rs.4,00,00,00,000, so the revisions under High Court Rules are maintainable; before the Division Bench. The perusal of the order of my Lord Chief Justice clearly indicates that no order has been passed with regard to conversion of revision petitions as reconsideration/re‑hearing/review applications but has been directed that I should proceed to pass an appropriate order. My lord the Chief Justice has very graciously recorded the statements of learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, the learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that he wanted to convert these revision petitions as applications for reconsideration/review applications. On this very material, "I am in agreement: with the learned counsel for the respondent that these revision petitions are still pending before the Division Bench and I have no jurisdiction to treat these revision petitions as applications for reconsideration/review applications. This is the prerogative of the Division Bench. It is a settled proposition of law that the jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon any Court/Tribunal/Authority by the consent of the parties. It is also settled that there is no estoppel against law. This being the position, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned counsel for the respondent is not entitled to raise this question, pale into insignificance and is accordingly repelled. I accordingly send the matter to my lord Chief Justice for appropriate orders. The order of this Court alongwith the relevant record of the case, shall be sent by the Deputy Registrar for being placed before my lord the Chief Justice by special messenger, today. A.A./M‑87/L Order accordingly