P L D 2003 Supreme Court 154 (PLP)

QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 26-8-2002 of a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Curt, Rawalpindi Bench whereby operation of the judgment impugned in Civil Revision No.538/D of 2002 was suspended.

2. The relevant facts are that on the strength of the record of the Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, the birth register maintained by the Union Council, Tarlai Kalan and the National Identity Card issued in the year 1995 a suit was brought by the petitioner for a declaration to the effect that his date of birth was 4-2-1977 and not 17-7-1978 as entered in the Secondary School Certificate issued by the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad. After a hot contest, the suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge Islamabad on 26-3-2002 and the appeal preferred by the respondent, namely, Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad was dismissed on 19-7-2002 by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad. The respondent filed a civil revision in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench and also moved an application (C.M.No.1-C of 2002) for suspension of the operation of the impugned judgment. The civil revision was admitted to full hearing and the operation of the impugned judgment was suspended, subject to notice.

3. Ordinarily, an interlocutory order passed by a competent Court is not interfered with by this Court. In this context it was held in Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Miraj-ud-Din 1994 SCMR 2281 that non-interference with the interim orders passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction is a 'rule' and interference is an 'exception'. However, as held in Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Muhammad Zaman Khan 1997 SCMR 1508 interference is justified in order to obviate miscarriage of justice where the interlocutory', order is arbitrary, capricious and against the well-settled principles of law.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have come to the inescapable conclusion that the present case falls within the category of exceptional cases on account of the nature of the impugned order, operation whereof was suspended in Chambers on 29-8-2002, and its impact on participation of the petitioner in the forthcoming General Elections. The petitioner is admittedly a contesting candidate for a National Assembly seat and his candidature is protected by the judgment and decree challenged in the civil revision. There are concurrent findings of fact in his favour with regard to his age, recorded by two Courts below, which will be scrutinized by the High Court at the time of final hearing of the civil revision in the light of the settled law on the subject and scope of revisional jurisdiction. If the impugned order, which was passed on the back of the petitioner and appears to be unnecessary, remains in the field the petitioner will be sidelined in the forthcoming General Elections on the ground of being less than twenty five years of age and will suffer an irreparable loss in case the civil revision is dismissed ultimately. A case for interference is thus made out which can be done without touching the merits of the case.

5. This petition is, therefore, converted into appeal and the same is allowed in the terms that the impugned order shall remain suspended till disposal of the civil revision. M.B.A./M-644/S Appeal allowed.