' IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, C.J.---By means of this Intra-Court. Appeal the appellant has thrown a challenge to the order dated 21-7-2011 passed by a learned. Single Judge of this Court whereby the Writ Petition (No,16986 of 2011) filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, forming background of the instant appeal, are that proceedings were conducted for auction of lease of government land comprising in Khasra No,408, Mauza Bheelo Wali Tehsil 85 District Narowal pursuant to a proclamation published in the newspaper namely 'Al-Sharq' in its issue dated 23-6-2011. Upon conclusion of the auction proceedings, Muhammad Hafeez (respondent No,3) was declared the highest bidder. Aggrieved by the said auction the appellant filed an application before the DCO Narowal for cancellation of said auction proceedings. As his request was not acceded to, he filed Writ Petition No,15525 of 2011 before this Hon'ble Court which came up for hearing on 15-7-2011 when the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Being dissatisfied- with the said order, the appellant filed I.C.A. No,434 of 2011 which was ultimately withdrawn on 20-7-2011 on the ground that the petitioner wanted to file a fresh petition. Again the appellant filed Writ Petition No,16986 of 2011 on the same cause of action.
The said petition came up for final hearing before a learned Single Judge on 21-7-2011 when the same was dismissed; hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is against law and facts; that while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge in Chambers did not take into consideration that while withdrawing I.C.A. No,434 of 2011, the appellant was granted permission to file a fresh petition on the subject; that the learned Single Judge in Chambers illegally held that writ petition was not competent as the same question was earlier decided in a similar petition; that the learned Single Judge omitted to note that respondent No,3 was not the resident of the village where the auctioned property was situated; that 'the learned Single Judge in Chambers failed to appreciate that the appellant participated in the auction proceedings and being occupant of the land in question he had preferential right over the other bidders; that the impugned order is based on misreading of certain documents; that the learned Single Judge in Chambers did not pay any heed to the appellant's contention that auction in favour of respondent No,3 was affirmed due to political influence and that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order did not advert to the very most question that the appellant had constructed six shops and a Haveli- from his pocket on the said premises.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the documents appended with this petition. Initially, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,15525 of 2011 impugning therein the auction proceedings qua the aforesaid land. The said petition was dismissed in limine against which the appellant preferred I.C.A. No,434 of 2011 The said I.C.A. Came up for final hearing on 20-7-2011 when learned counsel for the appellant opted to withdraw the same with a view to file a fresh one. Thereafter, the appellant filed Writ Petition No,16986 of 2011 which was dismissed by learned Single Judge in Chambers on the analogy that similar petition on the same cause of action has already been dismissed. Now the proposition to be answered by this Court is whether the observation of the learned Division Bench while dismissing I.C.A. Of the appellant as withdrawn has given him a right to file fresh writ petition. To answer this query we will have to revert to the Code of Civil Procedure as the procedure of a writ petition is governed by the Procedure provided in the said Code. Section 11 of the Code which deals with the principle of res judicata reads as under:-- "No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court."
A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that no subsequent proceedings on the same issue would be entertained which has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. Insofar as the instant matter is concerned, petitioner's earlier writ petition was dismissed in limine. A perusal of the dismissal order makes it explicitly clear that every limb of the matter was attended to by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the observation of the learned Division Bench while, dismissing the I.C.A. Of the appellant has withdrawn does not pave a way for the appellant to wriggle out from the bar of res judicata as en visaged by section 11 ibid. If any case- law is required on the subject, a reference can safely be made to the cases reported as Messrs M.K.B. Industries (Pvt.) Limited and others v. Chairman Area Electricity Board Peshawar and others (2005 SCM R 699) and Mrs. Mumtaz Maqsood v. Secretary, Revenue Division and another (2010 YLR 1869).
5. Insofar as question of appellant's participation in the auction proceedings is concerned, we have no doubt in our mind to hold that not a single document has been brought on record by the appellant tending to manifest that he actually participated in the auction proceedings. The copy of receipt regarding deposit of earnest money is not a conclusive proof of the fact that the appellant participated in the occurrence. Thus, the appellant has no locus standi to challenge the auction proceedings.
6. Now attending to the appellant's contention that respondent No,3 is not a man of clean slate and he is not owner in the said village, suffice it to observe that the competency of any person to participate in the auction proceedings is to be determined by the competent authority. A perusal of the proclamation published regarding the auction of the said land brings it to light that no embargo was put on a person who was not owner of a land in the said village to participate in the auction proceedings.
7. As a necessary corollary to the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, we have no doubt in our mind to hold that the subsequent writ filed by the appellant was hit by the principle of res judicata. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant has miserably failed to point out any material illegality in the impugned order justifying interference therewith. Consequently, this appeal, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.