' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.---Three questions relating to maintainability of this petition were raised by a Bench headed by worthy predecessor vide order, dated 27-5-2004 to the following effect:-- "(i) Question of filing of this petition in this Court in view of un-conditional withdrawal of the petition filed in Lahore High Court.
(ii) Non-production of resolution of the Board authorizing any Director/Officer of the petitioner to file this petition; and
(iii) Whether the assessm ent made on 9-9-1998 was a provisional assessment or a final assessm ent."
2. It may be stated that the petitioner had filed a petition before the Honourable Lahore High Court claiming the same relief but withdrew the same as is evident from the order, dated 31-8-1999 which reads as follows:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter at some length wishes to withdraw this petition. Dismissed as withdrawn."
3. Responding to the first question Mr. Junaid, Ghaffar argued that the petition was withdrawn in view of the pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sandal Bar's case (PLD 1997 SC 334) whereby the jurisdiction to entertain the same only vested with this Court. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner before the Lahore High Court was withdrawn on account of such jurisdictional defect and therefore, it must be held that permission to move the proper forum was implicitly granted while dismissing the petition as withdrawn. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance upon Moula Bakhsh v. Muhammad Zahid (PLD 1990 SC 596). Learned counsel further relied upon on his Lordship's pronouncement in Karim Gul v. Sahahzad Gul (1970 SCM R 141). Indeed in Moula Bakhsh case the petitioner had applied for withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh suit but unfortunately only an order permitting withdrawal was recorded.
In these circumstances, their Lordships observed that (and rightly so if we may in this respect) that permission to file a fresh suit must be assumed to have been implicitly granted. This view appears to be perfectly consistent with the earlier pronouncement in Karim Gul's case where it was held that whenever a party applies for withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh suit; the application has to be granted or refused in totality and it is not permissible to allow withdrawal without Court permission to file a fresh suit. The two judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court however do not appear to be of much help to the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that permission to file a fresh petition was ever sought. In fact the order passed seems to show that the petitioner did not withdraw the petition in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Sandal Bar's case but on the contrary chose to argue the matter for some time, presumingly on merits. Indeed the petition was filed by another learned counsel who is not before us and who has not even filed any affidavit to such effect. We are left with no option but to hold that petitioner had simpliciter withdrawn the petition without requesting or reserving right to file fresh petition.
4. Mr. Faisal Arab learned standing counsel has referred to a recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hashim Khan v. National Bank of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 325), where it has been clearly held that withdrawal of suit without permission to file fresh suit debars institution of any fresh proceedings and this judgment apart from being more recent was delivered by a Bench larger than the one deciding Moula Bux case.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we find the petition not be maintainable. In view of the above, it is not necessary to record our findings on the two other questions. The petition stands dismissed.