Pakistan Case Law← Search
PLJ 2011 Lahore 112

GULRAIZ AMIN MALIK vs Mst. AYESHA NOSEEN MALIK and 2 others

CitationPLJ 2011 Lahore 112
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.W.P. No. 7097 of 2010
Date2010-10-19
Judge(s)Ch. Muhammad Tariq
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

C.M. NO. 1 OF 2010 For the reasons stated/recorded in this application (CM. No. 1/2010) which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the main writ petition is restored to its original number.

2. Let the main case be heard today. MAIN CASE.

3. This writ petition has been directed against the order of ejectment dated 21.1.2010 and 6.3.2010 passed by Mr. Barkat Ali, Rent Tribunal, Chiniot, and Mr. Ashtar Abbas, learned Addl. District Judge, Chiniot, in respect of Property No. 14/3 situated at Chenab Nagar, Chiniot.

4. That on 27.5.2010, pre-admission notice was issued to Respondent No. 1 and in compliance, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 today appeared and informed this Court that the petitioner has concealed this fact that prior to filing of instant writ petition, the petitioner challenged the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 8969/2010 which was dismissed in limine by this Court on 3.5.2010. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed on record the photo copy of the judgment dated 3.5.2010 passed by this Court.

5. When confronted, the petitioner and his learned counsel denied this fact that previously a writ petition was filed which was dismissed.

6. The matter was confirmed from the office. The petitioner has played fraud with this Court while giving sequence to the addresses of the respondent and has also concealed this fact in his certificate that a previous writ petition was filed which was dismissed in limine. The attitude of petitioner is highly objectionable who has not come to the Court with clean hands.

7. The petitioner has not only concealed the relevant facts but he is guilty of mis-representation.

This writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.30,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.30,000/- on account of cost with the Deputy Registrar (Judl) of this Court, failing which, the Deputy Registrar (Judi) is directed to sent the matter of recovery of Rs.30,000/- to the District Officer (Revenue), Chiniot, with a direction to recover the amount of cost from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue after adopting all coercive methods, if so needed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search