FAZAL DIN vs WALI MUHAMMAD AND 5 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a second writ petition by the High Court, which was held to be incompetent after the petitioner's initial writ petition was dismissed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The core legal question was whether a party, having concluded a dispute through a compromise and withdrawn a writ petition, can subsequently reagitate the same matters by filing a second writ petition. The Supreme Court held that the second writ petition constituted an abuse of the process of the court and that the petitioner was precluded in principle from reagitating the settled matters. The court established the principle that a litigant who effectively withdraws a writ petition pursuant to a compromise cannot subsequently file a fresh writ petition on the same subject matter.
- Can a petitioner file a second writ petition after withdrawing the earlier one based on a compromise?
- Does the dismissal of a writ petition pursuant to a compromise preclude the petitioner from reagitating the dispute?
- Is the filing of a successive writ petition on the same matters considered an abuse of the process of the court?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, A. C. J.-This petition for leave to appeal is wholly misconceived.
2. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed in accordance with the compromise reached between the parties. The petitioner tried to resile from the compromise and applied for leave to appeal in this Court being civil petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 224 of 1969. It was dismissed on 24-10-1969 on the ground that the dispute between the parties was concluded by a compromise.
3. The petitioner filed a review petition on the ground that the High Court could not act upon a compromise in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution. The petition was dismissed with the observation that by agreeing to the compromise the petitioner had virtually withdrawn his writ petition. Armed with the order of this Court, the petitioner filed a second writ petition in the High Court on the ground that his earlier writ petition was not disposed of on merits. This was nothing, but abuse of the process of the Court. The petition was, accordingly, dismissed as incompetent against which the petitioner again seeks leave to appeal.
4. The above narration of facts is sufficient to dispose of this petition. If the petitioner withdrew his earlier writ petition having raised the matters in dispute between the parties, he was precluded, in principle, from reagitating those matters by a second writ petition. The High Court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the writ petition.
5. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- WASIULLAH KHAN Versus SECRETARY AVIATION DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 2018 PLC(CS)N 193