' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the respondents filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.18,24,087 against the appellant before the Chairman Modaraba Tribunal Punjab who passed the decree against the appellant vide judgment and decree dated 29-5-1999. The petitioner did not challenge the said decree in appeal before this Court and filed an application under section 12(2) read with section 151 of. C.P.C. Before the Tribunal below on 10-9-1999, which was dismissed vide order dated 18-10-1999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No.22878 of 1999, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17-2-2004.
' ThePetitioner has filed this Constitutional petition with the following prayer:-- "It is prayed that by accepting this writ petition, the impugned judgment and decree dated 29-5- 1999 to the extent of excessive amount than claim of Rs.15,18,750 be set aside and the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to receive the remaining amount in easy instalments . It is further prayed that till the final disposal of this writ petition the execution proceedings may kindly be suspended/stayed meanwhile."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal below has granted the excessive decree beyond the amount mentioned in the documents before the Tribunal below. Therefore, the impugned order is without lawful authority. He further submits that the judgment of Banking Tribunal is not in accordance with law laid down by the superior Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- "Mian Munir Ahmad v. United Bank Limited and others (PLR 1998 Karachi 278; "Sh. Muhammad Naeem v. Habib Bank Ltd. Karachi" (2003 CLD 606).
"Farzand Ram Naqvi and others v. Muhammad Din and others" (2004 SCM R 400).
3. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. The petitioner has alternative remedy against the impugned judgment before this Court which would be heard by two Judges of this Court. The petitioner has not challenged the said decree in appeal. This fact alone is sufficient that the petitioner has approached this Court with un clean hands. The petitioner has challenged the decree dated 29-5-1999 through this Constitutional petition which was filed by the petitioner before this Court on 28-4-2004 which is liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of laches, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Khiali Khan v. Haji Nazir and 4 others" (PLD 1997 SC 304). It is settled principle of law that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable in the presence of alternative remedy as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Ch. Muhammad Ismail's case" (PLD 1996 SC 246). It is settled principle of law that the principles of C.P.C. Are applicable in Constitutional proceedings as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Hussain Bakhsh v.
Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others" (PLD 1970 SC 1). The second writ petition qua the same subject-matter and relief is not maintainable in view of section 11 of C.P.C. As per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Pir Bakhsh v. Chairman Allotment Committee" (PLD 1987 SC 145). It is pertinent to mention here that as mentioned above, the petitioner has challenged the decree in the earlier round of litigation in Constitutional Petition No.22878 of 1999, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17-2-2004, therefore the constructive res judicata is applicable in all force in the present case. It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances and facts. The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner, are not relevant to resolve the controversy between the parties in view of aforesaid peculiar circumstances and fact of the case in hand, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem" (1994 SCM R 2213).
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.