1984 PLP 367 (CLC)

‑‑ O. XXI, rr. 99 & 101‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Objection petition filed against execution of ejectment order dismissed by trial Court and revision , petition also failed‑Order of dismissal not agitated before higher forum and thus becoming final‑Fresh petition on same grounds and under same provision, held, incompetent. ‑‑ Art. 9‑Order having obtained finality‑High Court refused to interfere in circumstances. ORDER The petitioner in this case claims to be a tenant of a premises. He has filed this writ petition to assail the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, dated 20th June, 1983 on the grievance that his objection petitions had not been properly disposed of.

2. The learned Additional District Judge has made it clear in his order on the basis of the record that the petitioner filed an objection petition under Order XXI, rule 9) read with rule 101, C.P.C. which was dismissed by the trial Court, on 4th May, 1983 Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition which was also dismissed by the learned Addi tional District Judge Mr. Akhtar Mahmood, on 29th May, 1983. The petitioner, on 23rd May, 1983 had also moved another objection petition under Order XXI, rules.99 and 101, C.P.C. This too was dismissed, on 8th June, 1983.

3. The petitioner on his own choosing did not wish to challenge the order of the trial Court, dated 4th May, 1983 or the revisional order of the Additional District Judge, dated 29th May, 1983 but appealed against the order of the trial Court, dated 8th June, 1983 in which he had said that the subsequent repeated objection petition was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed on 20th June, 1983. The Appellate Court also held that the petitioner‑had never been in possession of the property and he was only a put up man by the judgment‑debtor against whom an ejectment order had been passed.

4. Mr. Shahid Hussain Kadri had been allowed time, on 29th June, 1983 to enable him to produce the lease‑deed and the rent receipts in favour of the present petitioner. Today, he informs that the same have not been supplied to him by his client and presumably there are no such documents in existence.

5. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the objection petition initially filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court, on 4th May, 1983 against which the petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed, on 29th May, 1983. The petitioner never agitated the matter any further before a higher forum and thus allowed those orders to become final in law. Thereafter, if he gave any application before the trial Court on the same grounds and under the same pro vision, that was per se incompetent and no more than a cry in the wilderness.

6. I do not think I am competent to interfere in the present pro ceedings with an order which has attained finality in law. The conten tions of the petitioner do not inspire confidence and otherwise too this does not appear to be a fit case for exercise of discretionary. jurisdiction. This petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. M. B. A. Petition dismissed.