P L D 2012 Lahore 112 (PLP)

ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.

The elections of the Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry were scheduled to be held on 15-7-2010. Muhammad Arshad (respondent No.8) etc. filed a Constitutional petition (W.P. No.19685 of 2010) wherein the learned Single Judge in Chambers vide order dated 17-9-2010 annulled the election schedule and the appointment of the Election Commission. Through the aforementioned order, with the consent of the parties, an Election Commission was appointed consisting upon Mian Naeem Ahmad, Mian Amjad Saeed and Wisal A. Manno. The election schedule was also provided therein. The Secretary Ministry of Commerce Islamabad was directed to nominate an Additional Secretary and a Deputy Secretary to act as Independent Election Monitoring Officers.

2. Against the aforementioned order the appellants filed a review petition No.3205/2010 on 16-10-2010. The said petition was dismissed vide a short order dated 7-9-2011 which is in the following terms:-- "C.M.No.3205/2010 (Review) For the reasons to be recorded later on this review petition is dismissed."

3. The appellants have assailed the order dated 7-9-2011 through the instant appeal.

4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents, while relying upon cases reported as Petrosin Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and others v. OGDC through Managing Director (PLD 2011 SC 235) and Dr.Syed Raza Gardezi and others v. Nazaz Ali and others (PLD 2004 Karachi 143) submits that this appeal is badly barred by time and thus, liable to be dismissed. According to him, the Intra-Court Appeal could be filed within 20- days of the passing of the order dated 7-9-2011 and that the appellants could have also filed additional grounds after receipt of the detailed order. With these submissions, it is prayed that this appeal merits dismissal.

5. Conversely, the contentions of the counsel for the appellants are that the review petition was dismissed on 7-9-2011 through a short order and reasons for dismissal were to be recorded later on and since no reasons were assigned therein, therefore, they could file an appeal as and when the certified copy of the order containing detailed reasons was made available to them by the Copying Agency. It is submitted that the counsel for the respondents has raised a technical objection which is not sustainable. With these submissions, it is prayed that this appeal is maintainable and requires decision on merits.

6. Arguments heard and record perused. It is borne out of the record that review petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber for the reasons to be recorded later on, vide order dated 7-9-2011. The appellant filed the instant appeal on 2-11-2011 i.e. after the expiry of more than 35-days of the period of limitation. The point of limitation, in such like situation, has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Petrosin Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and others v. OGDC through Managing Director (PLD 2011 SC 235). The relevant portion is in the following words"-- "that the short order even not elucidating the reasons when has been signed by all the Judges and it finally disposes of the matter and thus the Court does not retain any control over the lis, for all intents and purposes is the final judgment/order of the Court; the party aggrieved of such order/judgment intending to assail the same in appeal or review must avail its remedy within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of short order etc., rather than waiting for the detailed reasons and allowing the limitation to pass by, however, in such a situation a right can be reserved to add to the ground of attack as and when the reasoned judgment is made available."

7. The appellants have assailed the interlocutory order dated 7-9-2011 whereby the review petition was dismissed. The law is very much clear on the point that no appeal shall lie from the interlocutory order or any order which does not dispose of the entire case. Subsection (3) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (XII of 1972) is in the following words:- "No appeal shall lie under subsection (1) or subsection (2) from an interlocutory order or an order which does not dispose of the entire case before the Court."

8. Even on this score, the instant appeal is not maintainable as the same is filed against the interlocutory order, which does not dispose of the entire case before the Court.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is dismissed. H.B.T./A-226/L Appeal dismissed.