1968 SCMR 145 (PLP)

FAZLR-AKBAR, J.-This is an appeal, by special leave, from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, upholding the dismissal of a writ petition by a learned Single Judge of that Court. The dispute relates to a shop situated at No. 85, Chaubutra Bazar, Ahmadpur East. It was transferred by the Settlement Authorities to Mehar Din (respondent No. 1) and Muhammad Israel (respondent No 2). As they were non-claimants they associated with themselves the appellant Saghir Ali who was a claimant and the agreement of association was approved by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur, exercising the powers of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. I hereafter, 6/8th share was transferred to Saghir Ali and I/8th share to Mehar Din and Muhammad Israel each, and a P. T. 0. to that effect was issued on 24-7-60. Later, Mehar Din and Muhammad Israel applied for cancellation of the deed of association on the basis of a Mafahamat Nama said to have been executed by Saghir Ali _on 8-6-60. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, on 24-1-61 refused to review his previous order. Mehar Din and Muhammad Israel then appealed against his order to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Comrnissioner. On 10-5-61, Saghir Ali execute a special power appointing one, Muhammad Hanif, as his Mukhtar to pursue the above appeal. On 12-3-63, Saghir Ali sent a registered notice to Muhammad Hanif and to the Additional Settlement Commissioner informing them that he had revoked the special power of attorney. The said notice was however received by Hanif on 14-3-63 and by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 15-3-63. On 13th March 1963, when the appeal came up for hearing, the parties put in a compromise which was accepted by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and he accordingly cancelled the deed of association and ordered for transfer of the shop to Mehar Din and Muhammad Israel. Saghir Ali filed a revision against the above order, but the same was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 24-4-63. He egality then moved a writ in the High Court calling in question the l of the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition, was unable to accept the contention of the appellant Saghir Ali (1) that Mehr Din obtained art affidavit from him and thereafter made certain interpolation therein purporting to cancel the deed of association, and (ii) that Muhammad Hanif had no authority to enter into -a compromise. On appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge was also Upheld by the Letters Patent Bench, The learned counsel for the appellant Saghir Ali repeated the arguments which were addressed before the High Court. He further contended that on 12-3-63 the appellant verbally informed ill Muhammad Hanif that the power in his favour had been revoked but even then he entered into the compromise by accepting Rs. 3,000 as illegal gratification. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the appellant Saghir Ali himself signed the compromise which was filed before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. This fact was, however, disputed on behalf of the aprellant. The questions, therefore, raised in this case are (a) whether Mafahamat Narna is a forged document, (b) whether the signature of Saghir Ali was forged on the compromise, (c) whether Muhammad Banff, the Mukhtar of the appellant, had received illegal gratification for entering into the said compromise, and (d) whether the said Mukhtar had been informed verbally by the appellant on 12-3-63 that the power in his favour had been revoked. These disputed questions which involve investigation into facts cannot be decided by short suit handed for method of a writ. They should be properly raised in a decision on the basis of evidence and in relation to issues drawnought of the pleadings. Therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition g to be affirmed though for reasoas different from those that prevailed in the High Court. We would, however, like to make it clear that we are upholding dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground that the Court would not enter into the controversial questions of fact raised in the writ petition. Hence, any findings recorded by the learned Judges of the High Court with regard to Mafahamat Nama and the compromise will not be finding on the parties in any future litigation. With these observations we dismiss this appeal but without any order as to costs, Appeal dismissed.