๐๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ข๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฅ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ง๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฌ.
In a very brief but significant judgment, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court has interpreted proviso to section 3 (2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, which provides that “…the appeal referred to in this sub-section shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any court, tribunal or authority against the original order.”ย
The enigma around this proviso was that it was not clearย whether it provides right to an Intra Court Appeal to a party who does not enjoy right to appeal, review or revision against the order passed in the original proceeding. The Court has set this issue right by interpreting the law that the said proviso is proceeding specific not parties specific. Therefore, one cannot say that he/she does not enjoy right to appeal against the original order rather the opposite party do. Hence, he/she must be allowed to file ICA before the same High Court.
The Court concluded that the testย whether or not an ICA shall lie is “…to see whether the proceedings, in which the original order has been passed, provide for an appeal, revision or review (collectively referred to as โappeal,โ for convenience) to any Court, Tribunal or authority against the original order…”
c.p._1800_l_2018
