1998 PLP 351 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, J.

By this common order we intend to dispose of the above Civil Miscellaneous Application and two Petitions for Leave to Appeal. It seems that Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.999/L of 1995 was filed by the petitioner in August, 1995, against an order dated 11-6-1995 in Writ Petition No. 132-R of 1995, filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, Habib Ullah, which was directed against the order dated 15-7-1968 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dismissing the same. It appears that simultaneously the petitioner also filed a Review Application in respect of the above order of the learned Single Judge dated 11-6-1995 before the High Court. After that in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.999/L of 1995, on 9-6-1996 it was ordered that the above petition be consigned to record subject to the right of the petitioner to move an application for revival. It further appears that the petitioner's review application has been dismissed by the High Court through an order dated 9-6-1996. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1709/L of 1996 assailing the above review order dated 9-6-1996. He has also filed the aforementioned civil miscellaneous application for reviving Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.999/L of 1995, which is allowed. Both the petitions are heard together.

2. The brief facts are that the suit bungalow was transferred to Latif Ahmed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur, by his order dated 15-7-1968. The petitioner filed above Writ Petition No. 132-R of 1995 i.e. after the expiry of nearly 27 years. The case pleaded by the petitioner was that Latif Ahmed and the petitioner were living together. The former filed CH Form for the transfer of the above bungalow on behalf of the members of the family including the petitioner. It was also averred that the petitioner had come to know about the above transfer order when they discovered that the notices of ejectment were served by said Latif Ahmed on the other tenants in 1995. However, the above writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by his order dated 11-6-1995 for the following reasons: "

5. Learned counsel submits that one Dil Muhammad predecessor-in -interest of respondent No.3 was brother of M/s. Habib Ullah, Jan Muhammad, abdul Haq and Hassan Muhammad and the transfer of the house was for the benefit of all the family members and not alone in the name of respondent No.3. The plea of the petitioners is devoid of any force. No material has been placed on the record to show that the house in question was either allotted in favour of the petitioners' predecessor- in-interest and that they submitted any form for the transfer of the same. Additionally, the property was transferred in 1968 and this order remained unchallenged and the petitioners cannot challenge the same after the lapse of 27 years. In these circumstances no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order of transfer. " The petitioner, thereupon, filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.999/L of 1995.

3. The High Court declined the review application through the above order dated 9-6-1996 on the ground that no legal infirmity of the nature warranting interference in review jurisdiction was made out. The petitioner filed aforesaid Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1709/L of 1996 as stated above.

4. Mr. S.M. Masud, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, has not been able to point out any legal infirmity in the above review order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers. The petition for leave has, therefore, no merits

5. As regards Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.999/L of 1995, he has invited our attention to the list of occupants at page 29, which indicates that the bungalow of six rooms, one store, one kitchen and three servant quarters were shown to be in occupation of Latif Ahmed, Abdul Haq and Jan Muhammad, whereas the document at page 30 of the paper book is an order of an officer of the Settlement Department for summoning of the parties for some convenient date. The above document indicates that the above bungalow, kitchen and servant quarters were in occupation of Latif Ahmed, Abdul Haq, Jan Muhammad, Habib Ullah and Hassan Muhammad. The latter document is without date. He has also invited our attention to the diary sheet at page 33 which is of 1963 indicating that besides Latif Ahmed, other parties also attended the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities. The fact remains that the above bungalow was transferred to Latif Ahmed in 1968, which order had acquired finality. The petitioner did not take any legal action for a long period of 27 years. It is unbelievable that if Latif Ahmed and the said petitioners Habib Ullah and Abdul Haq were living together as was alleged, they would not have found out what happened to their joint application for the transfer of the said bungalow. The learned Judge in Chambers in the impugned order has pointed out that there is nothing on record to indicate that factually Latif Ahmed had applied for the transfer of the bungalow on behalf of Habib Ullah petitioner and the other members living with him. In the review order, it has been pointed out by the learned Judge that the petitioners' plea that Latif Ahmed had applied on his own behalf and on their behalf is belied by the fact that the petitioner Habib Ullah had applied independently for the transfer of the bungalow. In our view, the High Court was justified in not pressing into service its Constitutional jurisdiction after the expiry of nearly 27 years in the matter which was a past and closed transaction. This petition also has no merits.

6. Leave is, accordingly; refused in both the above petitions. A.A./H-1/S Leave refused.