ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' second writ petition. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a subsequent constitutional petition challenging an order that was the subject of an earlier writ petition, which the petitioners' counsel had previously got converted into a civil revision, subsequently dismissed on the ground that a second revision was not maintainable. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, having themselves abandoned their earlier writ petition by converting it into a revision, cannot justify filing a subsequent writ petition to challenge the same impugned order. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that parties cannot bypass procedural bars by initiating successive overlapping challenges.
- Whether a subsequent writ petition is maintainable after an earlier writ petition challenging the same order was converted into a revision at the instance of the petitioner?
- Does a second revision lie against an order passed in revision by a District Court?
- Can a party justify filing a fresh writ petition after abandoning their prior constitutional remedy?
ORDER
' M. S. H. QURAISIH, J.-The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6- 2-1983 dismissing their Writ Petition No, 533 of 1981 for the reason that a fresh writ petition cannot be allowed.
2. The writ petition had been filed to challenge an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dated 13-5-1981 dismissing the petitioners' revision application, But that order had been earlier challenged by the petitioners by Writ Petition No, 296 of 1981, which at the request of the petitioners' counsel had been converted into and heard as revision but was dismissed on 17-10-1981 for the reason that a second revision did not lie. The petitioners did not challenge the decision but instead filed the aforesaid writ petition i,e,, No, 533 of 1981, to challenge, once again, the order of the Additional District Judge.
3. The petitioners having themselves abandoned their earlier writ petition by getting the same converted into a revision, can hardly justify the filing of the subsequent writ petition. After hearing learned counsel, we do not fin this to be a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.