Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 233 of 1971, decided on 12th May 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab, Lahore, dated the 13th September 1971, in L. P: A No. 159 of 1971).
Constitution of Pakistan (1962),
Art. 98‑Successive writ petitions‑First petition dismissed in terms of compromise arrived at between parties‑Second petition on ground that High Court could not act upon compromise in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 98‑Second petition, held, rightly dismissed by High Court on ground that petitioner was precluded from reagitating same matter over again‑Action of petitioner, in circumstances, held, nothing but abuse of process of Court.
Muhammad Ishaq Faruqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 12th May 1972.
‑This petition for leave to appeal is wholly misconceived.
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed in accordance with the compromise reached between the parties. The petitioner tried to resile from the compromise and applied for leave to appeal in this Court being civil petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 224 of 1969. It was dismissed on 24‑10‑1969 on the ground that the dispute between the parties was concluded by a compromise.
The petitioner filed a review petition on the ground that the High Court could not act upon a compromise in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962‑Constitution. The petition was dismissed with the observation that by agreeing to the compromise the petitioner had virtually withdrawn his writ petition. Armed with the order of this Court, the petitioner filed a second writ petition in the High Court on the ground that his earlier writ petition was not disposed of on merits. This was nothing, but abuse of the process of the Court. The petition was, accordingly, dismissed as incompetent against which the petitioner again seeks leave to appeal.
The above narration of facts is sufficient to dispose of this petition. If the petitioner withdrew his earlier writ petition having raised the matters in dispute between the parties, he was precluded, in principle, from reagitating those matters by a second writ petition. The High Court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the writ petition.
The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer