KALU vs MUHAMMAD RASHID And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a dispute over the transfer of property No.SW-III-57-S-14, Bheem Street, Krishan Nagar, Lahore. The petitioner had previously challenged the transfer of this property in a 1968 writ petition, which was partly accepted by the Lahore High Court, granting the petitioner one room but rejecting claims for additional accommodation. The petitioner accepted this order at the time. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to claim additional portions of the property, specifically a courtyard, latrine, and kitchen. The Lahore High Court rejected this later petition on the grounds of res judicata. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued for access to the room previously granted, implying a need for additional facilities. The Supreme Court held that granting such access would effectively require a review of the 1968 order, which had already finalized the scope of the transfer and denied additional accommodation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the matter was settled and could not be reopened.
- Does the principle of res judicata bar a petitioner from claiming additional portions of a property after a prior writ petition regarding the same property has been adjudicated?
- Can a court grant access to additional facilities in a property when a previous final order specifically denied claims for additional accommodation in that same property?
ORDER
M.S.H.QURAISHI, J.--The dispute relating to the transfer of property No.SW-III-57-S-14, Bheem Street, Krishan Nagar, Lahore, had been concluded by the order of a learned Single .Judge of the Lahore High Court passed on 31-10-1968 in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, whereby the petition had been partly accepted in the following words:-- "the present writ petition is accepted so far as the cancellation of P.T.O. Regarding one room from the name of the petitioner is concerned. The said room should be transferred to petitioner. So far as the prayer for claiming some additional accommodation in the portion in dispute or for quashing the order of the Addl. Settlement Commissioner, dated 17-2-1961, is concerned, the writ petition fails."
The petitioner felt satisfied and did not challenge the above order. However in subsequent proceedings he laid claim for transfer of the courtyard, latrine and kitchen in the property but this was denied to him and his writ petition was rejected by the Lahore High Court on 20-1-1980 on the ground of the matter having become res judicata.
2. Learned counsel urges that the petitioner should at least be provided with access to the room given to him by the earlier order of the High Court, but this cannot be done without review of that order whereby his plea for additional accommodation had been specifically turned down. The petition for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs JAMAL DIN and others 2000 CLC 305