1991 PLP 84 (SCMR)

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.

This is a petition filed by Dost Muhammad petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High court, Rawalpindi Bench. Dated 10-2-1990.

2. Dost Muhammad, petitioner, challenges the P.T.O. and P.T.D. issued in favour of one Abdul Ghafur, the predecessor‑in‑interest of Abdul Majid and Muhammad Ibrahim, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, in respect of transfer of shops bearing Nos. 2136 to 2138 and houses over the shops bearing Nos. 1689 to 1692. The petitioner claims to be in possession of Shops Nos. 2137 and 2138. Initially the P.T.O. was issued in favour of Abdul Ghafur on 30‑11‑1959. The petitioner never challenged the P.T.O. issued in favour of Abdul Ghafur at all. However, one Muhammad Din, who claimed to be in possession of Shop No. 2136, did so in 1960, whereupon the Additional S.C. on 1‑2‑1960 directed the,D.S.C. to examine the case afresh and to decide the matter on merits. He ordered the. case to come up on 4‑2‑1960. It appears that on 4‑2‑1960 the said Muhammad Din withdrew his appeal and the D.S.C. dismissed the appeal. by accepting his statement. Thereafter on 15‑3‑1963 respondents Nos. 3 and 4 secured the P.T.D. in their favour. On 29‑2‑1984 the petitioner applied to the D.S.C. to examine the case on the basis of the earlier order passed by the Addl. S.C. on 1‑2‑1960, and on 13‑5‑1985 also applied to the Board of Revenue for the transfer of shops Nos. 2137 and 2138 to him. The case then proceeded through various Courts, without any relief being obtained by the petitioner, who ultimately filed writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed on 6‑6‑1989.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that once the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the appeal of Muhammad Din on 1‑2‑1960 had set aside the P.T.O. of Abdul Ghafur and remanded the case to the D.S.C. to look into the matter, the said officer was duty bound to inquire into the case and report the matter back to the Addl. S.C. notwithstanding the appellant's withdrawal of his appeal and that the P.T.D. issued in favour of respondents Nos.3 and 4 on 15‑3‑1963 was illegal and void.

4. The petitioner appears to be guilty of gross negligence in the prosecution of his claim. He did not file any petition claiming the two shops bearing Nos. 2137 and 2138 from 1959 till 1984. In fact he had attorned as a tenant to one Munir Ahmad, who had then secured the ownership rights in the shops and thereafter to Babar Munir, his son, after the same was gifted to him. The said Munir Ahmad filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner, in which he succeeded. The case ultimately was decided in favour of Babar Munir by the Supreme Court in C.P.LA. No. 534‑R of 1989 on 20‑2‑1990. The attempt of the petitioner from 1984/1985 onwards to secure transfer of the shops was only a belated attempt to forestall the eviction decree passed against him. Taking all circumstances into consideration, no interference is called for in this case. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. A.A./D‑72/S Petition dismissed.