ABDUL GHAFOOR vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 3 Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over the transfer of Flat No. 1/1 in Karachi, which was previously subjected to multiple rounds of litigation between the petitioner and the respondent up to the Supreme Court. After failing in the initial litigation, the petitioner initiated a fresh round of litigation before the Settlement authorities claiming the flat on the ground that the respondent had never applied for its transfer. The Settlement authorities rejected the claim, and both a writ petition and a subsequent Letters Patent appeal in the High Court were dismissed. The core legal question is whether a litigant can be permitted to agitate new grounds in successive litigation regarding the same cause of action that could and should have been raised earlier. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to entertain the fresh writ petition based on the principle that a litigant cannot split up grounds to seek relief at different times. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Can a litigant be allowed to split up grounds to seek relief in respect of the same cause of action through different petitions at different times?
- Whether a fresh writ petition can be entertained when the petitioner failed to agitate the available grounds in previous litigation relating to the same matter?
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-In this petition for special leave, the dispute pertains to Flat No. 1/1 in the building known as Dayaram Jessumal Building, Blenkins Street, Karachi. It was at first transferred mistakenly to the petitioner as well as the respondent. On appeal by the petitioner, the case was remanded by the Additional Settlement Commissioner for deciding the rival claims of the parties. A Deputy Settlement Commissioner thereupon divided the entire building vertically, and transferred the flat in dispute (No. 1/1) situated on the 1st floor, along with Flat No. G/3 on the ground floor to the respondent, Nabijan Khan. The petitioner challenged this order right up to the Supreme Court but did not succeed. Notwithstanding his failure right up to the highest level, he sought to revive the dispute by another round of litigation before the Settlement authorities, claiming the flat in dispute for himself, on the ground that the respondent, Nabijan Khan had never applied for the transfer of this flat (No. 1/1). The Settlement authorities rejected his effort, where--upon he brought a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed, followed by a Letters Patent appeal, which has also been dismissed; hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. The High Court has rightly declined to entertain the fresh writ petition by the petitioner on the well settled principle that a litigant cannot be allowed to split up his grounds to seek hi relief in respect of the same cause of action and to make different petitions at different times. It has been observed in the orders of the High Court that there was no excuse for the petitioner to omit to agitate this fresh ground in the previous litigation relating to this very flat. The fact that the respondent, Nabijan Khan, 'where is no substance in this petition, which is dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- (1) K. Electric Limited (2) Syed Irtaza Raza Naqvi vs Registrar of Trade Union 2018 SHC 419
- Mst. KISHWAR SULTAN JEHAN BEGUM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER 1983 SCMR 254
- Syed YOUSAF MAHMUD AND OTHERS vs ABDUL HADI KHAN THROUGH DR. M. A. 1983 CLC 3319
- Mst. LATIFAN AND 7 Other vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 3 Other 1974 PLD Lahore 65