13/2010 II.A. Muhammad Shafiq (Appellant) V/S Muhammad Suleman Jameel & Ors (Respondent)

13/2010 II.A. Muhammad Shafiq (Appellant) V/S Muhammad Suleman Jameel & Ors (Respondent) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar Order Date: 30-MAY-14

(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 21---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, R. 10--- Ejectment proceedings against tenant---Remedies for a stranger against the order of Rent Controller---Principles---Plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that order of Rent Controller declining his request in the case to become a party was wrong---Validity---Plaintiff preferred an application under 0.1, R. 10, C.P.C. before Rent Controller which was dismissed and no appeal or revision against the said order was filed--- Order passed by the court during civil litigation in exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction could be attacked alongwith final order in appeal---Plaintiff should have filed appeal after final ejectment order and impugned both the orders viz; order of dismissal of application under 0.1, R.10, C.P.C. and final ejectment order---Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was special law and plaintiff had no option except to find remedy under said law---Plaintiff should have instantly filed an appeal or revision or even constitutional petition to press his grievance against the dismissal of his application under 0. 1, R. 10, C.P.C. by Rent Controller---Stranger to the proceedings or third party against the order of Rent Controller might have two remedies open to him i.e. an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. for recalling or review of the order based on fraud or filing a separate suit but he could only pursue one remedy he had initiated first or. earlier in point of time and having done so the other remedy should stand forfeited---Plaintiff had already entered into jurisdiction of Rent Controller and his right to avail other remedy of a separate suit was forfeited---Plaintiff had chosen wrong forum for filing a civil suit after final ejectment order---Plaintiff should have not abandoned the proceedings before the Rent Controller on dismissal of his application under 0.1, R.10, C.P.C.---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.