Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions Nos. 1472 and 1483 of 1980, decided on 19th August, 1984.

(From the order dated 23‑9‑1980 of the Lahore High Court passes in Writ Petition No. 574‑R of 1980).

-----Art. 199(5) ‑ Petitioners questioning in constitutional petition legality of order passed in revision by Division Bench of High Court‑Petitioners, held, were seeking a writ against an order earlier passed by High Court itself, which they could not do under Art. 199 inasmuch as High Court was not a person' as defined in Art. 199(5)‑Recourse to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was thus not competent.

‑‑ O. XXVIII, r. 3 & O. XIII, r. 5‑Resort to civil litigation on questions already concluded in previous round barred‑Frivolous and vexatious litigation not to be permitted to go unnoticed.‑‑Case. wherein other party was put to expense by lodging a caveat, held, was a fit case where costs should be awarded under O. XXVIII, r. 3 read with O. XIII, r. 5, Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sind P L D 1983 S C 46 ref.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C. P. No. 1472 of 1980).

Mirza Muhammad Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C. P. No. 1483 of 1980).

S. Munir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.

Date of hearing :19th August, 1984.

.‑The dispute between the parties had been decided on 12‑12‑1974 in the earlier round, by the Lahore High Court in Settlement Revision No. 52 of 1965, against which the petitioner's plea for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court had been rejected first by the dismissal of their Civil Petition on 29‑7‑1975, and then by the dismissal of their Review Petition on 12‑12‑1976 and another Review Petition on 9‑4‑1978. Having thus failed, the petitioners started a new round by instituting a civil suit but when the same was dismissed on 3‑2‑1980 and so was their appeal on 16‑3‑1980, they again carne to the High Court in Writ Petition No. 574‑R of 1980. Their attempt, in substance, was the reversal of the order passed in the aforesaid Settlement Revision. The writ petition was dismissed in limine on 23‑9‑1980 by a learned Single Judge by the impugned order upon the view that‑

"It is doubtful as to whether the petitioners are entitled without risk to raise any of the submissions having lost the same thrice over in the highest Court in the land. Surely, it is not possible for this Court to entertain these submissions, which have no substance either."

Aggrieved, the petitioners have sought leave to appeal by filing these two petitions, Civil Petition No. 1472/1980 by Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Yaqub and Civil Petition No. 1483i1980 by Muhammad Rafiq.

2. As appears from the impugned order, the petitioners had ques tioned the legality of the order passed by the they seeking Bench a writ Settlement Revision on certain rounds. Thus, against an order earlier passed by the High Court itself, which they could not do under Article 199 of the Constitution inasmuch as the High Court was not a "person" as defined in clause (5) of that Article, against whom the High Court was empowered to issue a writ. The recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was thus not competent. In fact in view of this Court's pronouncement in Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sind (P L D 1983 SC 46 ), resort to civil litigation on questions already concluded in the previous round was barred. Such frivolous and vexation, litigation cannot be permitted to go unnoticed. The other party has been put to expense by lodging a caveat. This is, therefore a fit case where costs should be awarded under Order XXVIII, rule 3 read with Order XIII, rule 5 of this Court's Rules. We, accordingly, while dismissing these petitions, direct the petitioners concerned to pay, in each petition, a sum of Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand only) in gross in lieu of taxed costs. The amounts, on realization shall be paid to respondents 1 to 3.

M. Z. M. 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.