1983 PLP 1760 (CLC)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑This is an appeal against an interlocutory order dated 31st August, 1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No. 760/81 declining the present appellant's application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the appellant and respondent No. 2 are allottees of certain plots of land. There is a strip of land adjacent to the above two plots. It is the case of the appellant that he made an application for the allotment of the above plot on 9th September, 1974 and that upon his above application the Director‑General, K. D. A. by his note dated 6th November, 197 ordered that the case should be put up before the Chief Minister for his order for allotment of the above land to the appellant. It seems that n sanction was accorded by the Chief Minister because of the fact that respondent No. 2 had filed a writ petition. After that it seems that the writ petition was abated, and thereafter respondent No. 2 filed a suit, in which he applied for an ad interim injunction, which according to the appellant was declined. However, the above strip of land was allotted` to respondent No.

2. The appellant after coming to know about this allotment to respondent No. 2 filed the above suit, in which he also filed the aforesaid application. But the above application was declined by the learned Single Judge as observed hereinabove. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

2. In support of the above appeal, it has been urged by Mr. Muhammad Sharif, learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was entitled to get the above land allotted in preference to respondent No.

2. In support of his submission be has urged that though on fit November, 1974 the Director‑General of the K. D. A. was not competent in law to allot plot of land without sanction of the Chief Minister but at the relevant time when this plot was allotted to respondent No. 2 the Director‑General K. D. A., had acquired the power to allot the plot of land and, therefore, the K. D. A. was duty bound to implement the order of the Director‑General, K. D. A., passed on 6th November, 1974. In our view prima facie the above contention is devoid of any force. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed tentatively that the appellant was unable to point out any rule under which he could have claimed the allotment of this strip of land as a matter of right. In the absence of any such right, the learned Single Judge's tentative view that the appellant hat failed to make out a prima facie case for the relief prayed for in his application under Order XXXIX, rules I and 2, C. P. C. seems to be in consonance with law. We are not called upon to decide the entitlement of the appellant finally. The question before us is, as to whether the learned Single Judge has exercised discretion properly or the same ha been exercised capriciously, we are inclined to hold that the discretion has been exercised properly, therefore, the order under appeal does not call for an interference by this Court. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.