1969 PLP 819 (SCMR)

FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑‑The dispute in this case is with respect to property No. V. VIII‑8‑S‑31, Bazar Ichhra Singh, Gujranwala. It consists of two shops, one garage, one residential unit on the first floor and a small tabela. Dr. Musa Khan, a local, and one, Muhammad Hussain, filed N. C. S. Forms for transfer of the shops which were in their respective possession. Abdul Hamid, a claimant allottee, who was in possession of the residential portion, filed a C. H. Form along with his wife, Mst. Razia Khatun and one, Ghulam Fatima, for transfer of the entire house to them. Muhammad Yousuf (predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners 1‑4) filed C. S. Form for transfer of the garage which was in his possession as an allottee and Jamal Din (peti tioner No. 5) filed C. H. Form for transfer of the tabela which was in his possession. The shop which was in possession of Dr. Musa Khan was subsequently auctioned under the order of the Settlement Authori ty. The remaining portion of the building, i.e. the residential unit along with the other shop, garage and tabela, was transferred to Abdul Hamid. Jamal Din, Mst. Zubaida Begum and others and Muhammad Hussain and his associate, then filed three separate writ petitions in the High Court against the orders of the Settlement Authority. Writ Petition of Jamal Din was dis missed in limine and that of Mst. Zubaida Begum and others was dismissed on ground of laches. Writ Petition of Muhammad Hussain was, however, accepted. The High Court set aside the order of the Settlement Authority and directed the Deputy Settle ment Commissioner to dispose of the form of petitioner Mohd. Hussain in accordance with law after hearing all parties to be affected by his order. It may, however, be mentioned that the present petitioners, that is, Mst. Zubaida Begum and Jamal Din were not made parties in the said petition. In the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Abdul Hamid the learned Judges of the High Court while arming the order of the learned Single Judge with some modification observed as follows :‑ "The learned counsel for the appellants contends that contest is now confined to the two parties before us‑ for the reason that W. P. No. 1573‑R of 1963 by Jamal Din and W. P. No. 35‑R of 1966 by Mst. Zubeda Begum widow of Muhammad Yusuf and others were dismissed by this Court. Since their petitions have been so disposed of, they will not ba entitled to a further hearing or consideration of their claim forms unless they are able to have the orders of dismissal of their petitions set aside. The order of the learned Single Judge shall not therefore be treated as giving them a right to be re‑heard to have a part of the house transferred to them." It is obvious from the above that though the petitioners were not parties in the writ petition or in the Letters Patent Appeal, orders, adversely affecting their claim to the portions of the disputed building in their possession, were passed. They were therefore allowed by this Court to file this petition for Special Leave to A Appeal against the decision of the Letters Patent Bench. It was contended that as the petitioners were not parties either in the writ petition or in the Letters Patent App‑.al, the High Court was not justified in ordering that "they will not be entitled to a further hearing or consideration of the claim forms unless they are able to have the orders of dismissal of their petitions set aside." In our opinion, the above contention is not entirely without force. We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security‑-Rs. 1000. Leave granted.