Pakistan Case Law← Search
2010 YLR 509

MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs RENT CONTROLLER/CIVIL JUDGE, 1ST CLASS, MULTAN

Citation2010 YLR 509
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No,7063 of 2008
Date2009-05-04
Judge(s)Ch. Naeem Masood
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.---The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 11-11-2008, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Multan.

2. The brief facts are that an application of ejectment was filed by respondent No,2, which was dismissed vide order dated 7-3-2003, for want of proof/evidence. Respondent No,2 filed an application under section 12(2) C.P.C, against the petitioner, which was also dismissed on 8-1-2007: Respondent No,2 then filed second ejectment petition. The petitioner filed an application under section 11 C.P.C. That the second application is hit by the principle of res judicata. This application was dismissed vide order dated 11-11-2008, by the learned Rent Controller, against which order, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the principle of res judicata is applicable to the present case and respondent No,2 could not file the second application for ejectment on the same cause.

4. I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record minutely.

5. It is note worthy that the second application contains additional grounds of damaging the property and the fact that the property was going to fall down and respondent No,2 was likely to rebuilt it and that respondent No,2 is not maintaining the house properly. Although there are very minor additions in the second application but the law does not prohibit to file a second application in the light of the observations made by the Honourable Apex Court in 2002 SCM R 480 (Muhammad Shafi v. Haji Shaista Khan). The Honourable Supreme Court in the said case has observed that additional grounds give the entitlement to the petitioner to file the second ejectment petition. Likewise, in PLD 1985 SC 220 (Bashir ud Din and others v. The Additional District Judge and others), it has been observed that additional ground gives an entitlement for a second ejectment petition.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant writ petition, being without any merits, is dismissed.

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search