Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4229 of 1982, decided on 6th November, 1982.

‑‑ Art. 9 ‑ Inherent jurisdiction ‑ Person approaching Court with unclean hands or suppressing material facts of case ‑Not entitled to any relief in exercise of discretionary powers‑Government, held, does not enjoy any preferential rights qua citizens in civil matters Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151.

‑‑ S. 151‑‑‑Inherent jurisdiction‑Petitioner found to have already lodged a report with police for redress of their grievance and under taken to give complete details of articles allegedly thrown out after holding inquiry ‑ Petitioners however not found to have supplied any such list to police‑ Petitioners, held, estopped by this conduct to seek redress of their grievance in such regard.

‑‑ Art. 9 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151 Grievance made in petition relating only to validity or otherwise of order of Rent Controller ejecting petitioners ‑ No grievance having been made to regarding alleged misconduct of Bailiff, applica tion under S. 151, Civil Procedure Code, held, misconceived.

F. A. Khan v. The Government of Pakistan P L D 1964 S C 520 ref.

Tanveer Ahmad, Asstt. A.‑G. (Government Pleader) for Petitioner.

This is an application under section 151, C. P. C. praying therein that some Officer of this Court be directed to prepare the inventory of the articles lying on the roadside and deliver to the petitioners.

The facts relevant for the disposal of this application are that in view of the contention of the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that there was some misreading of the record by the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Court, my learned brother M. Zafarulla, J., by order dated 25‑10‑1982 was pleased to requisition the record. As to the interim relief, the following order was passed :‑

"Status quo shall be maintained in the meantime. As this stage Mr. Hakam Qureshi, Advocate, has appeared and submitted that the orders of the lower Court have already been implemented. Mr. Muhammad Sami Sales Incharge submits that some of the Almirahs and Telephone etc. are still lying in the premises.

Whatever be the situation on the spot at the moment, the status quo as it is now shall be maintained."

3. Prior to this order, the petitioners have already lodged a report with the police vide daily diary Report No. 36 dated 24‑10‑1982 with Police Station New Anarkali, Lahore, alleging therein that landlord respondent No. 1 in connivance with the Bailiff of the Court broke open the locks of the disputed property and threw away all the articles on the roadside. The relevant portion reads thus‑‑

4. Notwithstanding the fact that this report was lodged with the police on 24‑10‑1982, Mr. Tanveer Ahmad Khan, learned Assistant Advocate- General has frankly made a statement at the bar that this factum was not brought to the notice of my learned brother when order of status quo was passed. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General submits that this fact was never brought to his notice either by the petitioners or any of their official. The police report, in question, was lodged by Mr. Muhammad Sami, Sales Incharge of petitioner No.2 and, therefore he ought to have disclosed this fact to the learned Assistant Advocate‑General at the time of passing the interim order dated 25‑10‑1982.

5. Be that as it may, it is well‑settled that a person who approaches the Court with unclean hands or suppresses material facts of the case is not entitled to any relief in the discretionary exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The Government does not enjoy any preferential right A qua the citizens in civil matters. The suppression of this fact on the part of the petitioners tantamounts to practising fraud on this Court and on this short ground alone the application is liable to be dismissed.

6. Even otherwise, the petitioners have no case on merits, in that, for the redress of their grievance, they have already lodged a report with the police and undertook to give the complete details of the article alleged thrown out after holding due enquiry. I am told by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General on the specific instructions of Mr. Muhammad Sami, aw Sales Incharge, who is present in Court today that the petitioners have not so far supplied any list of articles allegedly thrown out by the Bailiff of the Civil Court to the police. The petitioners are, therefore, estopped by their conduct to seek redress of their grievance in this regard. Furthermore, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners moved some miscellaneous appli cation under section 151, C. P. C. before the Executing Court. The learned Executing Court by order dated 30‑10‑1982 rejected the application of the petitioners on the same subject‑matter. The grievance raised by the petitioners ' in this petition only relates to the validity or otherwise of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby the petitioners were rejected by the respondent. There is no grievance whatsoever regarding the alleged misconduct of the Bailiff: Viewed from this angle as well, the present application is mis conceived. Reference may be made to F. A. Khan v. The Government of Pakistan (PLD1964SC520), wherein it was observed:‑

"It is only when a litigation in one forum is completed that the litiga tion in the other forum should start and that an order really becomes an order when the appeals to which it is subject are exhausted."

The petitioners have, therefore, no case even on merits.

7. Mr. Muhammad Sami, Sales Incharge, has tendered unqualified apology for earlier not bringing this matter to the notice of the Court. The apology is accepted. He is, however, warned that in future if any misrepresentation or concealment is made in the prosecution of this case, he shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

For the reasons stated above, the application fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

S.A.H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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