' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent (LDA) in the Court of respondent No.4 (Civil Judge, Lahore), wherein the petitioner prayed that respondent No.1 (LDA) be restrained to demolish the constructions made by the petitioner over the plot in-question. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. Before respondent No.4, who accepted the same vide order dated 10-2-2005. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition against the said order before the learned Addl: District Judge, Lahore, who dismissed the same vide order dated 5-3- 2005. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that both the Courts below erred in law to accept the application of respondent No.2 without notice to the petitioner and without providing proper hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that respondent No.2 died in the year 1983 and plot in- question was allegedly allotted in the year 1984 to respondent No.2, therefore, the legal heirs of respondent No.2 did not secure the decree from civil Court mala fide by concealing the material fact, therefore, all the documents relied by respondents No.2 are fabricated and forged ones. In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 is not necessary and proper party; therefore, both the Courts below erred in law to accept the application of respondent No.2.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner at the time of deciding the application of respondent No.2 that the petitioner has not produced any title with regard to property in-question; whereas respondent No.2 has placed on record letter dated 18-1-2004. According to which plot in-question has been exempted in his name.
Both the Courts below have . Exercised power, which is in consonance with Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C.
As interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan". (PLD 1975 SC 463). It is admitted fact that both the Courts below have non-suited the petitioner with cogent reasons in terms of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment of Abdul Wali Khan's case. It is also settled principle of law the writ petition qua concurrent findings against the Courts below is not maintainable in view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- "Khuda Bakhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and others." (1974 SCM R 279).
"Muhammad Sharif and others v. Muhammad Afzal and others" (PLD 1981 SC 246).
"Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan Ahmed and others" (PLD 1981 SC 522).
It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of Tribunals below, while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution, as per principle laid down by this Court in "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v.
M. Mussadaq Naseem Sindhu." (PLD 1973 Lahore 600). It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in a character. The substantial justice has been done between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings of litigation; therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner, as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commission" (PLD 1973 SC 236). It is also settled principle of law that observations in interim orders are not binding upon the learned trial Court at the time of deciding the main suit, which of course, shall be decided on the basis of evidence produced by the respective parties, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the main suit without being influenced by the observations of the first Appellate Court and this Court as early as possible in accordance with law.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.