Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 769 of 1984, decided on 17th February, 1985.

---Art. 199--Civil suit already in progress--Institution of writ petition- Legality of--Where prior instituted comprehensive civil suit was already in progress before competent Court, there was, held, no warrant in law for institution of writ petition about the same matter.

--Art. 199--West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XV11 of 1967), S. 44--Constitutional jurisdiction--Correction of Khasra Girdawari--Correction of Khasra Girdawari being disputed question of fact, held, could not be undertaken in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Mian M . Perwaiz Akhtar for Petitioner. M. Sultan Alam for Respondent No.4.

This writ petition has been filed by the petition to assail the concurrent order of three revenue Courts ordering his eviction for failure to pay Batai share to respondent landlady.

2. I held, in this case, a pre-admission hearing at which on behalf of respondent No. 4, Mr. M. Sultan Alam, Advocate, appeared. He produced before this Court a copy of the plaint, dated 21-5-1984 to show that the petitioner had already filed a comprehensive civil suit whose trial was in progress and the next date of hearing was 5-3-1985. It was further complained that this fact has been completely suppressed by the petitioner in the body of the writ petition despite the fact that civil suit had been filed much earlier to the institution of the writ petition. The suit was for a declaration that the petitioner was a co-sharer in possession of the land in dispute and was not a tenant of respondent No. 4 and that the entries in Khasra Girdawaris from Kharif 1982 showing him to be tenant under respondent No, 4 and that the order of his eviction by the revenue Courts were void and of no effect with consequential relief for permanent injunction to refrain respondent No.4 from interfering in his rights.

3. After hearing the learned counsel, I feel that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on principle and authority. Apart from suppression of fact regarding prior institution of a comprehensive civil, suit which is still in progress, there was no warrant in law for institution of this writ petition. The fate of the pleas of the petitioner is also dependent upon the relief regarding correction of Khasra Girdawari which exercise cannot be undertaken in Constitutional jurisdiction being a disputed question of fact.

The net result is that there is no force in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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