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 Moderaba 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 CPC 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 22878-1999, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.2.2004.
The petitioner 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 installments. 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 of 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 :-- 'Minn Munir Ahmad vs. United Bank Limited, etc." (PLD 1998 Karachi 278); "Sh. Muhammad Naeem vs. Habib Bank Ltd. Karachi" (2003 C.L.D. 606); "Farzand Razd Naqvi, etc. vs. Muhammad Din, etc." (2004 S.C.M.R. 400).
3. I 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. This 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 29.5.19.99 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 vs. Haji Nazir and four others" (PLD 1997 S.C. 304). It is settled principle of law 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 S.C.
246). It is settled principle of law that the principles of CPC are applicable in Constitutional proceedings as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Hussain Bakhsh vs. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others" (PLD 1970 S.C. 1). The second writ petition qua the same subject matter and relief is not maintainable in view of Section 11 of CPC, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Pir Bakhsh, vs. Chairman Allotment Committee"
(PLD 1987 S.C. 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, 22878-1999, 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, vs. Muhammad Saleem" (1994 S.C.M.R. 2213)
In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.