ISLAMABAD; Superintendent Central Jail, Adiala, Rawalpindi on Monday challenged in the Supreme Court (SC) objections of its registrar office, returning his appeal against the order of Islamabad High Court (IHC) regarding contempt proceedings.
He filed the chamber appeal under Order V Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 against the order passed by the learned high court on August 17, 2024, making Imran Khan Niazi as respondent.
He prayed to the apex court that his appeal might be accepted and Order dated 17.08.2024 of Registrar returning the CPLA as ‘Not Entertainable’ be kindly set aside with direction to entertain the Petition and after registration and allotment of number, the same be put up for hearing before the court for decision in accordance with law.
He submitted that he had filed the CPLA against the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2024 passed by Islamabad High Court, Islamabad however, his appeal was returned by the Registrar of this Court being “not entertainable” on the grounds that in the present case, since the impugned Order dated 18.07.2024 in Criminal Original No. 185/2024 (Contempt) has been passed by a learned single judge of Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, therefore, an intra-court appeal may be filed before the same High Court, instead of CPLA before this august court.
The Superintendent Central Jail, Adiala, Rawalpindi contended that the order of the registrar is against law and facts available on the file and is, therefore, liable to be set aside and the CPLA filed by the appellant needs to be registered for hearing on merits.
He submitted that the Registrar of this Court has failed to appreciate and consider the material brought on record and has illegally and erroneously returned the CPLA as not being entertainable.
He contended that the Registrar has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction and returned the CPLA as being not entertainable in an arbitrary manner, resulting into miscarriage of justice which order is not sustainable in law and the CPLA is liable to be entertained and adjudicated upon for the ends of justice.
He further submitted that the objections raised by the Registrar for declaring the CPLA as “not entertainable”, are against law and facts on the file. He claimed that the CPLA thus filed was fully competent and entertainable and was illegally returned adding that the Order of the Registrar returning the same, therefore, needs to be set aside by this court.
Moreover, the appellant contended that the impugned order for not entertaining the CPLA does not lie within the domain of office but it is solely in the jurisdiction of the court. He contended that this court could examine the grievances raised by him and no other subordinate court could examine his grievances.