2005 PLP 1688 (CLC)

The brief facts out of which present revision arises are that the land of the petitioner measuring one Kanal bearing Khasra No.474/3 situated at Mauza Peer Kalan, Tehsil and District Lahore, was acquired by the respondent for residential scheme known as Township, Lahore. The respondent exempted Plot No.1 situated in Block-4, Sector-C/II, measuring 10 Marlas after development in the area in question and terms of the policy of the respondent vide allotment letter dated 15-6-1972. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 22-10-1999. The respondent being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, who accepted the same vide judgment and decree dated 27-3-2001. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Civil, Revision Petition No.810 of 2001 before this Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 3-5-2002. The petitioner had filed C.P. No.2202-L of 2002, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 17-5-2002. The petitioner filed another suit for declaration in the Court of Civil Judge, Lahore on the ground that respondent has concealed the material facts qua documents, which were in possession of the respondent. The respondent has concealed the Circular dated 3-3-1983, which is attached as Annexure "D" with this revision petition. Respondent has also given benefit of said circular to other persons whose cases are similar to the petitioner, therefore, action of respondent is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. The action of respondent is also not inconsonance with terms of agreement, which was executed between the parties on 15-11-1985. The trial Court rejected the plaint vide order, dated 4-2-2003. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Lahore, who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 3-6-2003. Hence, present revision petition.

2. The learned counsel of petitioner submits that action of the respondent is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution and this fact was not considered by both the Courts below in its true perspective. He further submits that respondent with mala fide intention, concealed the material facts from this Court in the earlier round of litigation. He further submits that action of the respondent is not in consonance with circular dated 3-3-1983, but both Courts below erred in law not to consider this aspect of this case in its true perspective. In support of his contention, he relied upon Syed Shahzad Hussain's case PLD 1990 Lah.222.

3. The learned legal advisor of the respondent entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The matter has been settled upto the apex Court, therefore, second suit qua the same subject-matter and relief is not maintainable in view of section 11 of C.P.C. and Order II, rule 2, C.P.C. as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Abdul Majid v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan and others PLD 1982 SC

146. The aforesaid judgment is reaffirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Asif Jan Siddiqui v. Government of Sindh and others PLD 1983 SC

46. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court is that in case Presiding Officer shall entertain the suit, then he shall be prosecuted, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments of Courts below. It is settled principle of law that it is the duty and obligation of the petitioner to show that impugned judgments of Court below are in violation of any principle laid down by the superior Courts or the result of misreading and non-reading of record. The Privy Council has also laid down parameters to interfere in the findings of the Courts below while exercising power under section 115 of C.P.C. in N.S. Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Madras PLD 1949 PC

26. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to bring the case with parameters prescribed by the Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment. Even otherwise judgments of both the Courts below are in accordance with dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. M.H./H-82/L Revision dismissed.