M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The dispute between the parties had been decided on 12-12-1974 in the earlier round, by the Lahore High Court in Settlement Revision No. 52 of 1965, against which the petitioners plea for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court had been rejected first by the dismissal of their Civil Petition on 29-7-1975, and then by the dismissal of their Review Petition on 12-12-1976 and another Review Petition on 9-4-1978. Having thus failed, the petitioners started a new round by instituting a civil suit but when the same was dismissed on 3-2-1980 and so was their appeal on 16- 3-1980, they again came to the High Court in Writ Petition No. 574-R of 1980. Their attempt, in substance, was the reversal of the order passed in the aforesaid Settlement Revision. The writ petition was dismissed in limine on 23-9-1980 by a learned Single Judge by the impugned order upon the view that:- "It is doubtful as to whether the petitioners are entitled without risk to raise any of the submissions having lost the same thrice over in the highest Court in the land. Surely, it is not possible for this Court to entertain these submissions, which have no substance either."
Aggrieved, the petitioners have sought leave to appeal by filing these to petitions, Civil Petition No. 1472 of 1980 by Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Yaqub and Civil Petition No. 1482 of 1980 by Muhammad Rafiq.
2. As appears from the impugned order, the petitioners had questioned the legality of the order passed by the Division Bench in the Settlement Revision on certain grounds. Thus they were seeking a writ against an order earlier passed by the High Court itself, which they could not do under Article 199 of the Constitution inasmuch as the High Court was not a "person" as defined in clause (5) of that Article, against whom the High Court was empowered to issue a writ. The recourse of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was thus not competent. In fact in view of this Court's pronouncement in Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sind PLD 1983 SC 46, resort to civil litigation on questions already concluded in the previous round was barred. Such frivolous and vexatious litigation cannot be permitted to go unnoticed. The other party has been put to expense by lodging a caveat. This is, therefore, a fit case where costs should be awarded under Order XXVIII, rule 3 read with Order XIII, rule 5 of this Court's Rules. We, accordingly, while dismissing these petitions, direct the petitioners concerned to pay, in each petition, a sum of Rs.2,000 (rupees to thousand only) in gross in lieu of taxed costs. The amounts, on realization shall be paid to respondents 1 to 3.