1994 PLP 2138 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM SIDDIQUI — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL-Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2138 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM SIDDIQUI — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (W of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2138 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (W of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2138 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2138 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM SIDDIQUI — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Asghar Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2 & O.VII, R.11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199
Constitutional petition
Order of transfer of employee from one place to another challenged by petitioner as being mala fide by instituting civil suit
Petitioner's application for stay of order of transfer was dismissed as also his plaint in suit was rejected
Petitioner instead of seeking appropriate remedy under Civil Procedure Code praying for relief by filing Constitutional petition
Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Saleem Siddiqui, petitioner herein has instituted this Constitutional petition with a view to challenge the order, dated 19-6-1991 passed by respondent No.3 directing him to handover the charge of the post of Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster, Mandi Bahauddin to respondent No.4. His grievance is that the order is mala fide and the same has not been passed by any competent authority.
2. From a perusal of the material placed on the record, it appears that petitioner's civil suit for a declaration and injunction regarding the said cause of action was resolved against him vide judgment/decree dated 4-11-1992 rendered by Ch. Shahid Nasecr, Civil Judge Ist Class, Gujrat holding that neither it was maintainable nor he had any cause of action, to file the same. In addition to dismissing petitioner's application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C., his plaint was also rejected under Order 7 , Rule 11, C.P.C. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 411-1"n any further. In this view of the matter, this petition cannot but be held to bean effort on the part of the petitioner to bypass the remedy available to him under section 96, C.P.C.
3. Confronted with this, the learned counsel was content with arguing that this petition in this Court is competent for the reason that the order dated 19 61991, passed by respondent No.3, is mala fide in law and the same can be challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution without availing of the remedy challenge finder the ordinary nary law. I am afraid, the contention is devoid of any merit. No reason whatsoever has been advanced by learned counsel to satisfy the Court fat no other adequate remedy is available to the petitioner to justify his resort to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. This petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed in limine. AA,/M-1669/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.