1989 PLP 1862 (SCMR)

NIUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in this case by a Writ petitioner in the High Court in circumstances which to say the least are extraordinary. The petitioner and the contesting respondents' side had filed a joint writ petition to the High Court against the annulment of gift said to nave been made by the petitioner in favour of the contesting respondent side (the progeny of his brother). The order impugned before the High Court which had the affect of annulment of the said gift was passed by the Federal Land Commission after considerable proceedings before the lower Land Commission Authorities. During the pendency of the said writ petition the petitioner made an application before the High Court seeking withdrawal from and of the writ petition in so far as he was concerned. As this request if allowed would have affected adversely the contesting respondents much more than the petitioner, they resisted the application. Notwithstanding the same, it was allowed and the petitioner went out of picture. Subsequently, however, the writ petition which remained pending on behalf of the contesting respondents herein, was allowed and the respondent side as donees of the land in question benefited from the judgment of the High Court in what different ways and to what extent, it is not necessary for these proceedings, to go into. Strangely enough the petitioner has called in. question through this petition for leave to appeal the judgment of the High Court whereby the contesting respondents donees from him, have been benefited. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection, namely, that the present petition is not competent because, the petitioner had himself withdrawn from the contest before the High Court. It has also been asserted from the respondents' side that this petition for leave to appeal has been filed with mala fide intentions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has in reply denied the allegation of mala fides. On the contrary according to him if the order of the Federal Land Commission would have remained intact, the petitioner would have benefited on the question of the choice in the surrender of land under the relevant Land Reform Regulation. Primarily the donees, the gift in whose favour having been annulled by the Federal Land Commission, were the aggrieved party who sought the relief from the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner no doubt in this case. Was a party but in the position of pro forma party. His making application for withdrawal for whatever purpose and whatever motive, did not change the position in so far as the continuance and persistence of the respondents/donees for the prosecution of the writ petition, is concerned. They, therefore, under no law or principle car, be deprived of the fruit of the judgment of the High Court on the asking of a person who not only withdrew from the contest but also being a donor and not concerned in the matter had opted to withdraw from the proceedings. In these circumstances, therefore, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same is refused. M.A.K./M‑981/S Leave refused.