Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SIDDIQI VS Respondent: LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ajmal Mian, Wali Muhammad Khan Title: MUHAMMAD SIDDIQI vs LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST Case No.: Civil Petition No, 511-L of 1993 Date of Judgment:1994-05-09 Reported As: 1995 SCMR 920 Result: Leave refused
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 14-11-1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No, 1060 of 1970 filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on the merits for the following reason:- "....Even on merits, appellant has no case as admittedly he not being in possession of the plot in question, the suit for injunction restraining the respondents from allotting the plot in dispute is not maintainable. Moreover, admittedly this is third suit in the series and the first two suits having been dismissed, the present suit was not maintainable. The suit primarily failed because of the dismissal of the previous suit. The finding that the suit was not maintainable and the other observations made by the two Courts below could not be controverted by learned counsel for the appellant before me. There is thus to merit in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs." 2. Choudhry Muhammad Sadiq, learned Advocate Supreme Court; appearing for the petitioner, is not able to show as to how the impugned order suffers from any infirmity. However, he submitted that this Court may make observation to the effect that the petitioner may be given plot No, 107, which was offered to the petitioner by the respondent as an alternate plot and which according to him is still allegedly available. 3. We are not inclined to grant leave. Leave is refused. As regards the above request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will suffice to observe that the petitioner is free to approach the respondent with his above request which will be dealt with in accordance with law.