' AJMAL MIAN, J.-The petitioner through this petition has prayed for the following reliefs :-
(i) That the order passed by respondent No, 2 in Rent Case No, 2069/70 while granting ejectment of the petitioner from the Bungalow No, 1.7 15th Street, Defence Housing Authority, is illegal, unlawful, without lawful jurisdiction and is not executable.
(ii) that any subsequent order passed on the basis of this illegal order is unlawful, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
(iii) To suspend the order of ejectment passed by the respondent No, 2, and all other orders passed on the basis of this illegal order passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
(iv) To grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(v) To award cost of the petition."
' The relevant facts leading to the filing of this petition are that respondent No, 3 filed Rent Case No, 2069/70 for ejectment, inter alia, on the ground of default. The above rent application was resisted by the present petitioner. In the above rent case a tentative rent order dated 17th August, 1971 was passed, of which the petitioner committed default. Consequently upon an application, the learned Rent Controller by an order dated 27th March, 1972 ordered the striking off petitioner's defence. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order filed First Rent Appeal No, 309/78 which seems to have been dismissed. Respondent No, 3 had filed Execution Application No, 1/1977, in which the petitioner filed an application under Order XXI, rule 26 on the ground that respondent No, 3's husband agreed to sell the Bungalow to the petitioner's wife under a sale agreement dated 29th April, 1972 which was dismissed and a writ of ejectment was issued. It seems that after that the petitioner filed two applications under section 151, C.P.C. Dated 13th December, 1981 on 14th December, 1981 wherein in the first application the petitioner prayed for the stay of execution, to file an appeal and to obtain a stay from the appellate Court and in the second application the petitioner prayed for that the executing Court should take judicial notice of the fact that the Rent Controller, who decided the case was not vested with the jurisdiction to try the case as the proper Court was the Assistant Rent Controller, Cantonment Board, Karachi. The above application were resisted by respondent No,
3. The learned Senior Civil Judge/ASI-Ill, Karachi by his order dated 15th December, 1981 dismissed the aforesaid applications. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order filed Civil Appeal No, 438/1981 which dismissed by an order dated 23rd February, 1982 by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present after the expiry of nearly one year from the last order.
3. In support of the above petition Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the bungalow in question is situated within the limits of Clifton Cantt. Area, the Rent Controller, who decided the ejectment case had no jurisdiction and, therefore, the original order of ejectment dated 27th March, 1972 and subsequent order in the rent proceedings are without jurisdiction. In our view the above contention of the learned counsel is devoid of any force. It may be observed that in para. 5 of the rent application, respondent No, 3 had averred that the property was situated within the local limits of Saddar Police Station which admittedly was within the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller concerned, to which in reply the petitioner did not raise the plea that the bungalow was situated within the limits of Clifton Cantonment area and that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction. The parties proceeded before the learned Rent Controller on the assumption that the Court concerned had the jurisdiction in the matter. This plea was not even raised when the learned Rent Controller passed the aforesaid order dated 27th March, 1972 nor it was raised when the rent appeal was filed against the above order, nor this plea was raised in the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI, Rule 26, C. P. C. Before the executing Court. The plea of jurisdiction has been raised first time in December, 1981 i. e. After the expiry of nearly 11 years from the date of filing of the rent application. In our view this cannot be permitted in a writ petition. It may also be observed that before the Courts below no document was produced to indicate that the bungalow is situated within the limits of cantonment. However, in this petition the petitioner has produced a certificate dated 24th August, 1982 issued by the Assistant Secretary, for Cantonment Executive Officer, Clifton Cantonment. Certifying that House No, T-7, 15th, East Street, Pakistan Defence Services Officers Co-operative Housing Society Limited Karachi is situated within the limits of Clifton Cantonment Karachi. In our view this certificate cannot be looked into by us.
4. It may also be pertinent to point out that prior to the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner's wife filed Suit No, 75/1982 in this High Court for the specific performance of the alleged sale agreement dated 29th April, 1972 in respect of the bungalow in question. In the above suit an injunction was sought for restraining respondent No, 3 from executing writ of possession issued in the aforesaid execution application, which application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 2nd June, 1982 with the observations that in case respondent No, 3 was able to take possession of the disputed house, she would not sell or in any manner transfer or create encumbrance of any nature nor shall part with the possession of the said house till further orders. Against the above order the petitioner's wife filed H.C.A. No, 40/1982, which was dismissed by a D. B. Of this Court by an order dated 18th August, 1982 and a petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. In our view in a fit case this Court may decline to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in case where it will cause injustice instead of fostering the cause of justice. Apart from the fact that the question whether the bungalow was situated within the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller or not is a disputed question of fact and, therefore, cannot be determined by this Court in a writ petition, we are not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction as admittedly the rent case was filed in 1970 c which and the other proceedings arising therefrom proceeded on the assumption upto 13th December, 1981 that the learned Rent Controller had the jurisdiction. The petitioner after expiry of nearly 11/12 years wishes to re-open a case which stands finally disposed of against him. It will not be in our view just and proper.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine.