Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 2nd of October 1970, in L. P. A. No. 155 of 1970).

Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 98‑Successive petitions Litigant not allowed to split up his grounds to seek relief in respect of same cause of action and make different petitions at different times.

M. G. Dastgir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by V. A. Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 19th August 1971.

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑

In this petition for special leave, the dispute pertains to Flat No. 1/1 in the building known as Dayaram Jessumal Building, Blenkins Street, Karachi. It was at first transferred mistakenly to the petitioner as well as the respondent. On appeal by the petitioner, the case was remanded by the Additional Settlement Commissioner for deciding the rival claims of the parties. A Deputy Settlement Commissioner thereupon divided the entire building vertically, and transferred the flat in dispute (No. 1/1) situated on the 1st floor, along with Flat No. G/3 on the ground floor to the respondent, Nabijan Khan. The petitioner challenged this order right up to the Supreme Court but did not succeed. Notwithstanding his failure right up to the highest level, he sought to revive the dispute by another round of litigation before the Settlement authorities, claiming the flat in dispute for himself, on the ground that the respondent, Nabijan Khan had never applied for the transfer of this flat (No. 1/1). The Settlement authorities rejected his effort, where upon he brought a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed, followed by a Letters Patent appeal, which has also been dismissed; hence this petition for special leave to appeal.

The High Court has rightly declined to entertain the fresh writ petition by the petitioner on the well settled principle that a litigant cannot be allowed to split up his grounds to seek hi relief in respect of the same cause of action and to make different petitions at different times. It has been observed in the orders of the High Court that there was no excuse for the petitioner to omit to agitate this fresh ground in the previous litigation relating to this very flat. The fact that the respondent, Nabijan Khan, 'where is no substance in this petition, which is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.