Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 836 of 1979, decided on 12th April, 1986.

(from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑9‑1978 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 211 of 1970).

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11‑‑Res judicata‑ Petitioner seeking transfer of evacuee property‑‑Failed upto Supreme Court stage‑‑Started second round of litigations by instituting suit in civil Court‑‑Suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and locus standi of petitioner‑‑Second appeal also failed‑‑Order impugned‑‑Held: Decision given by Supreme Court earlier concluded the matter and principle of res judicata and exclusive jurisdiction of Settlement authorities clearly stood in way of civil Court in entertaining and adjudicating upon the matter‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.

Petitioner in Person.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th April, 1986.

The petitioner, a local Advocate, seeks, in this second round of proceedings coming up to the Supreme Court, leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑9‑1978, whereby his regular second appeal was dismissed with costs.

2. The petitioner sought the transfer of a ‑house which, according to him, was of less than rupees ten thousand in value but he was informed that his LH form stood rejected on the 10th of March, 1960. He had sought review of that order, then appealed against it but failed. In the meantime the house was transferred in earmarking to respondent No.3 who later sold his rights in the same to respondent No.2. The petitioner challenged the refusal of the Settlement authorities to transfer the house to him by a constitutional petition but the same was dismissed on 15‑12‑1964. He filed a petition for leave to appeal in this Court which too was dismissed on 4‑10‑1965. He sought a review of the dismissal order which was dismissed on 9th of March, 1966.

3. The second round of litigation was started by him in the Civil Court by a suit instituted by him challenging the refusal of the Settlement authorities to transfer the house to him and transferring it to others. He claimed the declaration of being the owner of the house on the ground that the Settlement authorities were bound to transfer the same to him. The suit was contested on the issue of bar of jurisdiction and the Senior Civil Judge held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction in the case and also that he had no locus standi to approach the civil Court after having failed in the High Court and the Supreme Court. The first appeal was also dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The second appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the matter agitated by the petitioner was barred by res judicata in view of the earlier decisions.

4. The petitioner himself argued the petition. His contention was that the merits of his claim were at no stage examined, the order pleaded against him was void and the super structure that followed such an infirm order itself could not be legally recognised and given effect to. He pressed his claim for transfer of the house and contended that all those similarly situated had got the properties in their possession transferred and there was no reason why the petitioner should be made an exception to it.

5. The specific question now sought to be raised by the petitioner, namely, the refusal of the Settlement authorities to transfer the house to him and the transfer made to respondent No:3, was the subject‑matter of earlier proceedings in the first instance before the Settlement authorities themselves and having failed therein, the constitutional petition and the petition for leave to appeal filed in this Court. At all the stages, he failed to get recognition of his claim. The same relief on the same facts could not be sought from the civil Court. Not only the matter stood decided, in fact the dispute raised was the same which had been agitated by him throughout. The decision given by this Court earlier concluded the matter and the principles of res judicata and of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities clearly stood in the way of civil Court in entertaining and adjudicating upon the matter. The petition has no merit and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

M. I. 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.