Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MALIK MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P., HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
1989 S C M R 1772
1989 S C M R 1772
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid Usman Ali Shah, JJ
MUHAMMAD Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P.,
HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT and 8 others Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 52‑P of 1989, decided on 22nd May, 1989.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 31‑1‑1989, passed in W.P. No. 256/86).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑O. XXIII, R.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Writ petition, withdrawal of‑‑Earlier writ petition was withdrawn without the permission to file a new Writ Petition‑‑Order under challenge remained unchanged and became final‑‑Subsequent writ petition claiming similar relief, held, was rightly dismissed by High Court.
Abdus Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1989.
ORDER
USMAN ALI SHAH, J‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby Writ Petition No. 256 of 1986 of the petitioner against the order of the Addl. Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Peshawar (respondent No. 1) was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record of the case we have come to the conclusion that this petition has no force and deserves dismissal straightaway. Because a perusal of record shows that an earlier Writ Petition No. 523 of 1978 was withdrawn without the permission to tile a new writ petition. Hence, the order dated 30‑8‑1979 of the learned High Court remained unchanged and is final. Since the subject‑matter of the earlier writ petition is the same and a similar relief is claimed by the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Thus under the provisions of Order XXI11, Rule 1(3) of the C.P.C. this writ petition was rightly dismissed. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have dismissed the subsequent writ petition with the observation that at the time of delivery of possession to respondents Nos. 3‑9 the authority concerned is to satisfy himself that the land gifted to Arshullah is the same of which the possession was taken from Muhammad petitioner.
Under the circumstance of the case, we dismiss this petition being without merit.
M.A.K./M 920/S Petition dismissed.