1. ' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---The perusal of contents of this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the material on the record, the files of the previous litigation between the parties, manifests the classic example of stubbornness of a litigant who appears to be determined to mock the process of law and the Court repeatedly, on one pretext or the other. Undeterred by the several rounds of litigation in which he has kept engaged the other side up to this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and having lost time and again, he has again filed this petition.
2. ' The detailed background of the litigation going on between the parties was noted by me in judgment dated 8-11-2002 while dismissing W.P. No,120-R/97.. Though the petitioner filed petition for leave to appeal against that judgment the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 7-2-2003 and even he failed in review petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 8-5-2003. Yet he continued dragging the other side into litigation and filed number of petitions afterwards before this Court. One of them was dismissed by me on 9-5-2006 (W.P.
3. No,8224/05) in which he was burdened with costs of Rs,10,000. In the impugned order dated 12-9- 2005 also, the background of the long drawn litigation has been mentioned.
4. ' The learned counsel on query of the Court states that he is not aware of the fact whether the petitioner had even paid the costs to the other side or not.
5. Be that as it may, there has to be an end to the litigation at some stage to rest all concerned in peace, but here is the petitioner who continues to abuse and misuse the process of the Court with impunity. In the earlier round of litigation even, I had reminded him of the principle stated in Pir Bakhsh represented by his legal heirs and others v. The Chairman Allotment Committee and others PLD 1987 SC 145 so that the matter could set at rest, but he has again taken a chance now through a different learned counsel. Apart from the fact that he has no case on merits, he is precluded by previous judgments to re-agitate the matter once again and deserves no leniency, and is liable to be burdened with costs due to his conduct, for filing this frivolous petition over again.
6. ' The petition, thus, is dismissed with costs of Rs,10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand).