' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner gave first application for installing a connection of electricity on 9-2-2008. The petitioner submitted again an application on 6-1-2009 for domestic use at House NQ.157-C, Satellite Town, Tehsil and District Sargodha and this house total area is 3 Marla and the petitioner is competent and thoroughly owner of said house under the record of revenue as Khasra No,157/C, Khatoni No,1334, Khywat No,1334, Muhal, Chak No,45 Alf. Sheen, Patti, Satellite Town, "C" Block, Fard Jamabandi year 2007- 08. That the petitioner provided all relevant documents to defendant No,4 for fulfilment of legal requirement but the defendant No,4 rejected the application for new electricity connection and meter on the basis of fake grounds that defendant No,4 alleged that the said house property was a big house which was demolished and had been converted into small plots/houses of 5 Marlas in developed area.
2. Learned counsel further contends that respondents have already supplied two electricity connections in Property No,157/C and have refused to install electricity meter in the premises of the petitioner which is a glaring discrimination, therefore, writ petition be allowed, respondents be directed to install electricity connection and meter without any further delay.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this writ petition and has argued the case on the basis of parawise comments already submitted. Learned counsel contends that contents of writ petition are vague and misconceived. The petitioner has not only concealed the relevant facts but he is guilty of misrepresentation as earlier the petitioner raised the same controversy by filing a civil suit which was dismissed. Thereafter the matter went to the court of District Judge, Sargodha who disposed of appeal of the petitioner, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out certain other material facts in this behalf and has prayed that writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of record highlights that prior to filing of this writ petition, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No,371 of 2009 in the court of Civil Judge, Sargodha who dismissed the suit vide order dated 15-3- 2010. Thereafter the matter was heard by the learned District Judge, Sargodha in appeal and contempt petition and was disposed of by the learned District Judge, Sargodha. The petitioner concealed all these facts and has filed the instant writ petition. Record further reveals that previously the respondents directed the petitioner to fulfil all the formalities so that electricity connection be installed but instead of performing the formalities, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. Along with the parawise comments respondent- department has also annexed an affidavit sworn by the petitioner whereby the petitioner has undertaken to fulfil certain conditions but failed to honour his undertaking. Today the petitioner has also denied the said affidavit. The grievance of the petitioner was already decided by the civil court which could not be agitated in the writ petition by concealing relevant facts. The principle of res judicata duly attract in the matter in hand because the petitioner assailed his grievance before the civil court who disagreed and dismissed the suit. Thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction and claims the same relief which is not warranted under the law. As questions expressly or impliedly raised before civil court previously, same could not be re-agitated in the writ petition vice versa, Any question or controversy expressly or impliedly raised before the High Court and decided in its constitutional jurisdiction earlier would be barred and could not be raised subsequently raised in a civil suit. Writ petition is without any merit and substance, same is dismissed.