1. Present petitioner claims to be Hari of the disputed land and aggrieved by the impugned order he has fled the present petition and is seeking setting aside if the impugned order on the ground that he ought to have been made as a party. The basis if his claim being an old Hari and tenant of Surveys Nos. 93, 94, 97, 98, 467 to 469.
2. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has argued that in paragraph-3 of the petition the petitioner himself is claiming cultivation of the land in question under and through Muhammad Ramzan. He has referred to the order passed in Civil suit filed by Muhammad Ramzan claiming to be the lessee of the property in question. In the said suit order was passed that Muhammad Ramzan Bhutto has no locus standi to seek any interim relief. This order was challenged before District Judge who rejected his appeal. Then Muhammad Ramzan filed an appeal before the High Court which too met the same fate. The proceedings against Muhammad Ramzan attained finality.
3. The present petitioner then filed suit seeking same relief which was sought by Muhammad Ramzan. The suit was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. And appeal was preferred before District Judge which was dismissed for non prosecution. The present petitioner did not pursue the matter any further. He then filed an application before the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property for joining him as a party which was dismissed. He did not prefer any appeal against such dismissal and when the matter was pending before the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan he moved another application to be joined as a party on the ground that he is a lessee. The said application was dismissed and he has come before this Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner once resorted to Civil remedy by way of Civil suit and having failed in seeking any relief the controversy has become res judicata and therefore he cannot re-agitate the same dispute