1. ' GULZAR AHMED, J.---After hearing learned counsel at length by a short order of today the plaint was rejected and listed applications were also disposed of.
2. ' Mr. Shahid Jamil learned counsel for defendant No,1, at the outset, has raised an objection about the maintainability of the suit on the ground that there are already two orders of two Division Benches of this Court one passed in C.P. No,D-594/2001, dated 16-1-2002 and the other, dated 18- 12-2002 passed in C.P. No,D-469/2001. In earlier petition, the Plaintiff was respondent No,4 while in the latter the plaintiff was the petitioner. In both the petitions the subject matter was about the construction of the building as in the present suit and the earlier petition was disposed off with directions to defendant No,1 to cause the premises inspected and in case any construction is found to have been raised in violation of law the same may be demolished after notice to the parties and the cost be recovered from the builder. In the latter petition, it was ordered that defendant No,1 after hearing the plaintiff and examining the evidence produced by him, take further action. It seems that pursuant to these two orders passed in the said two C.Ps., the plaintiff submitted regularization plan of the plot in question to the defendant No,1 who after considering the same issued a letter, dated 10-12-2002 and found that regularization plan submitted by the plaintiff cannot be considered for approval due to encroachment and illegal constructions beyond the plot limits and thus rejected the same. The plaintiff was directed to remove the unauthorized constructions. Consequent upon this letter, present suit is filed along with an application for injunction upon which on 21-1-2003 an order was passed for maintaining status quo and since then it is continuing.
3. ' Mr. Syed Sarfaraz Ahmed, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has submitted that the only relief for which the suit has been filed is of implementation of the two orders passed in the earlier two constitutional petitions and beyond that the plaintiff seeks no further relief. He has stated that in the order, dated 18-12-2002 the defendant No,1 was specifically directed to examine the evidence and then pass an order but no evidence was taken by the defendant No,1 and thereof the said order has been violated.
4. ' I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and find, in the first place, the plaintiff has not filed with the plaint copies of the said two constitutional petitions nor of the said two orders.
5. The plaintiff apparently has suppressed the fact that on the same subject matter two C.Ps. Were already filed and orders in them have been passed. Defendant. No,1 with its written statement has field copy of the order, dated 18-12-2002 passed in C.P. No,D-469/2001 while the defendant No,3 has filed copy of the order, dated 16-1-2002 passed in C.P.No,D-594/2001 with its written statement.
6. ' As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff only seeks relief of implementation of the orders passed in the two C.Ps. Reference is made to the case of Mehdi Hassan v. Zulfiqar Ali (PLD 1960 Lah.451) where a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at page 755 observed as follows:-- "When an order passed by this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction is not complied with two procedures are open to the person aggrieved. He may pray for further directions when there can be a bona fide dispute as to what is the effect of the order or he may apply for action under the Contempt of Courts Act. In the first case the Court may after determining the effect of its order give further direction for its enforcement. Such an order would not be an order in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. In the second case the Court may either find the respondent guilty or it may discharge him on the ground that the respondent acted in the bona fide belief that he was complying with the order of Court though in fact he was disobeying it. Henceforth that person would know the effect of the order and if he still failed to comply with the order the defence of bona fides would not be open to him in any application that may subsequently be filed under the Contempt of Courts Act."
7. ' At page 756 there is further observation which is follows:-- "We have already stated that the Court which issues a writ can be moved for its implementation, but such further proceedings would be proceedings in the very same petition for writ. If a Court has already issued a writ the Court can be approached for an interpretation for its order and for its enforcement, but these proceedings which may be called proceedings in execution or proceedings in implementation, are a continuation of the previous proceedings and if the application for a writ can be heard only by a Division Bench the application which is continuation of these proceedings can also be heard only by a Division Bench. The orders passed in such proceedings are also orders passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In fact while hearing application for implementation sometimes further or amended writs may, in view of the circumstances which arise afterwards or circumstances which may not have been brought to the notice of the Court when the writ was originally granted, have to be granted, and such writs could obviously be granted only by a Division Bench. We would held that Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J, was not empowered to pass any order in implementation of the order passed by the Division Bench."
8. ' In the case of Asif Jah Siddiqui v. Government of Sindh (PLD 1983 SC 46) in which it is held that where controversy has been competently brought before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction subsequently suit raising all questions previously decided in constitutional petition will be barred under the provision of Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. As well as on the principle of res judicata. Similar view is also taken in the case of Ali Muzaffar v. Mst. Aktul Begum (1998 SCM R 678). Rule laid down in the above quoted cases given full answer to the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
9. ' These are the reasons for the short order.
10. ' After the short order was passed, learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed before me in Chamber an application under Order XLI Rule 5, C.P.C. For staying the operation of the order passed today. Issue notice to the defendants. The operation of the above order is stayed for a period of seven days.