IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.--- Learned counsel for the appellant after having argued the case at length, when called upon to satisfy us that the I.C.A, filed by the appellant was dismissed being barred by time and the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 18.5.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 27- R/2005 had remanded the case to the authority notified to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, what was wrong with the judgment for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction by this Court. He attempted to make an effort to justify the filing of the petition and in the same breadth pointed out that the appellant itself is the authority notified. We are surprised to know this fact that the forum to whom the case has been remanded to the High Court vide order dated 18.5.2005 in Writ Petition No. 27-R/2005 approached the High Court in ICA and instead of complying with the directions of the learned Single Judge in Chambers, rushed to the Supreme Court and succeeded in obtaining leave to appeal vide leave granting order dated 6.3.2007 which is reproduced as under:--- "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as for the applicant in CMA No. 735- U2007. We grant leave to appeal to consider, inter alia, the question as to whether after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws, a Mukhbar was not entitled to the allotment and adjustment of his pending P.I.
Units against the cancelled land in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repealed) Act, 1975 and the judgment in the case of Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Akhtar Munir (PLD 2003 SC 603) and Muhammad Ramzan v. Member Revenue (1997 SCM R 1635). Since short points of law effecting a large number of cases are involved the office is directed to fix the main appeal for final hearing on the present record, within a period of six months. However, parties may file additional documents, if so advised."
2. Learned counsel stated that permission be granted to withdraw the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent is running from pillar to post since 1955 to onward and still his claim has not been satisfied, a functionary under statutory provisions of law who is bound to exercise the jurisdiction in either way rushed to the Supreme Court in order to cause delay in the disposal of the matter.
3. What appears from above is that seven years had passed from the date of passing of the orders by the High Court which had caused serious agony to the respondent due to pendency of litigation in Court, It is to be noted that in this case leave to appeal was granted and following the same order leave has also been granted in another matter (CA-1521/2008) therefore, the appeal is dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs. 100,000/- besides cost of litigation which shall be calculated by the office. The cost shall be deposited with the Registrar within a period of two weeks.
However, the leave granting order in connecting appeal No. 1521 shall remain intact for the purpose of disposing of the said matter separately.