1969 PLP 162 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 162 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Abdus Sattar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 162 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 162 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Abdus Sattar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 162 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Manan Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 9th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 27th May 1968, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 76 of 1968).
Art. 98‑Successive petitions Rule of constructive res judicata attracted‑Petitioner debarred from seeking same relief which had earlier been refused.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Manan Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 9th October 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The, dispute relates to the transfer of a shop forming part of property No. 118‑B‑V in Montgomery. The petitioners applied for transfer of the shop on the basis of their possession of two chaubaras over it. The Settlement autho rities rejected their claim on the finding that the shop constituted a separate unit and that another shop bearing No. 337/E already stood transferred to the second named petitioner. Dissatisfied they filed Writ Petition No. 1024/R of 1962 in the High Court which was dismissed by Masud Ahmad, J., on the 28th November 1962, on the basis of the report submitted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the shop constituted a separate unit and neither petitioner was in possession. Reliance was also placed on paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, under which only one shop could be transferred to a claimant or a non‑claimant. On 9‑1‑1963 the petitioners filed a Second Writ Petition in the High Court on the same pleas which were raised in the Writ Petition of 1962. The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the view that it was not maintainable in law and the decision was upheld by the Letters Patent Bench. In support of the prayer for leave to appeal it was contended that as the orders passed by the Settlement authorities were manifestly illegal, the dismissal of the First Writ Petition was not a bar to the maintainability of the Second Writ Petition on the same pleas. It has been seen that the earlier writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on consideration of the report by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the provisions of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. No new circum stance arose to furnish a fresh cause of action on the same pleas. The rule of constructive res judicata was attracted and the petitioner was debarred from approaching the High Court seeking the same relief which had earlier been refused. The view adopted by the High Court is plainly correct. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.