1989 PLP 1083 (SCMR)

NASIM 14ASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed , against the judgment dated 29‑10‑1988 passed in Writ Petition No.361 of ,988/BWP. The petitioner is occupying a shop in Ittehad Chauk, Liaquatpur. Respondent No.2 filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioner alongwith one Muhammad Yunus. The latter did not oppose the same and was proceeded ex parte. During the pendency of the ejectment application the parties agreed that the matter may be referred to Ch. Masood Ahmad, as a referee, whose decision they agreed to accept. The said referee thereafter found in favour of respondent No.l and on the bass of his finding the Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's ejectment. However. on an appeal, the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan remanded the case to the Rent Controller with the direction that the referee be asked to make a fresh report in the light of the pleas raised by the parties. In pursuance of the above order, Ch. Masood Ahmad again took up the matter and in a detailed report again found in favour of respondent No.l. The ejectment application was, accordingly, again allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 9‑9‑1987. The petitioner despite having agreed to be bound by the finding of the referee (Ch. Masood Ahmad) challenged the order of the Rent Controller by filing an appeal, but the said appeal was dismissed by a learned 5 Additional District Judge on 19‑4‑1988. The orders of the Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge were thereafter challenged before the High Court by a Constitutional petition, which was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court sitting at Bahawalpur. The learned Judge expressed the opinion that the case in hand was not a fit one for exercise of the High Court's Constitutional jurisdiction inasmuch as the petitioner had categorically stated before the Rent Controller that he would be bound by the report of the referee and will not raise any objection against it. This assurance was again held out before the learned District Judge when he remanded the case for decision afresh before the same referee (Ch. Masood Ahmad). Thereafter, the referee submitted a detailed report and both the Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge, on appeal, after examining it found that it was a satisfactory disposal of the matter and should be given effect to. The High Court, in these circumstances, refused to exercise its discretion to interfere and dismissed the Constitutional petition. We do not find any error in the approach of the High Court and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, feel that a just and fair disposal of the matter he has been effected. No ground for interference exists and this petition is, therefore, dismissed. AA./M‑766/S Petition dismissed.