' The facts, necessary for the disposal of this constitution petition are that Zulfiqar Ali Shah, respondent No. 2, filed an ejectment petition against Ali Husnain Qadir respondent No. 1, Mst. Nighat Yasmeen, respondent No. 3 and one Syed Muhammad Saqlain, who is father of aforesaid respondents and the present petitioners, for ejectment of respondents from bungalow No. 251/C (41-B) New Muslim Town, Lahore on the grounds of default and personal need. The ejectment petition was resisted by respondents and in the written statement jointly filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, one of the pleas taken was that there was misjoinder of respondents in the ejectment application as respondent No. 3 did not reside in the house in question since her marriage and that she was residing with her husband at Karachi and Syed Muhammad Saqlain, respondent was residing with Ali Hussain Qadir and as such their names were liable to be struck off from the array of respondents. The existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties, rejected the application on 9-5-1975 as he recorded the conclusion that Zulfiqar All Shah applicant/respondent had no interest in the property and that All Husnain Qadir, respondent No. 1 in this petition, was the full owner. The order of dismissal of ejectment petition passed by the Rent Controller was challenged by Zulfiqar Ali Shah by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal was then accepted vide order dated 26-1-1980 on the basis of a compromise arrived at between Ali Husnain Qadir respondent No. 1 and Zulfiqar Ali Shah, respondent No.
2. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the name of Syed Muhammad Saqlain was struck off from the array of respondents on 26-1-1980 on an application moved by Zulfiqar Ali Shah. Syed Muhammad Saqlain had also died on 24-5-1978 during the pendency of appeal. The compromise referred to above Exh. C/1 was to the effect that Ali Husnain Qadir acknowledges and admits Zulfiqar Ali Shah as legal owner and landlord of the property in dispute and that the documents of title produced to support the plea of title in the property are fake having been fraudulently executed. Ali Husnain Qadir, respondent also agreed to vacate the premises in dispute within ten days.
2. The order dated 26-1-1980 accepting the appeal on the basis of compromise arrived at between All Husnain Qadir and Zulfiqar All Shah was challenged by the petitioners by filing a declaratory suit in the Civil Court. They also filed SAO. No. 51/1980 to challenge the order of appellate authority dated 26-1-1980. The second appeal, however, abated under Ordinance VII of 1980. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present constitution petition with the explanation that in the suit filed in the civil Court, the civil Judge will not grant any relief against the impunged order, hence that remedy was not an adequate remedy in the circumstances of the case.
3. The petitioners are sons of Syed Muhammad Saqlain Shah from his first wife Mst. Anees Saqlin whereas Ali Husnain and Mst. Nighat Yasmeen are the issues of Syed Muhammad Saqlain from his second wife named Mst. Farakh Sultana. Zulfiqar Ali Shah respondent is the brother of aforesaid Mst. Farakh Sultana. The plot underneath the bungalow was admittedly owned by Zulfiqar All Shah.
Before the learned Rent Controller, Ali Husnain Qadir claimed ownership and title in the bungalow asserting that Mst. Sarfraz Begum, mother of Zulfiqar Ali Shah, acting as duly authorized special attorney of Zulfiqar All Shah had executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Khadim Hussain, her husband who in turn gifted this property to Mst. Farakh Sultana, her daughter and on the death of Farakh Sultana on 27-6-1970, the property devolved on All Husnain Qadir, her son, Mst. Nighat Yasmeen , daughter and Muhammad Saqlain Shah, husband of the deceased. Mst. Nighat Yasmeen and Muhammad Saqlain then relinquished their rights in favour of Ali Husnain Qadir, hence he became full owner of the property. The petitioners claimed that Ali Husnain Qadir, their step-brother transferred 1/50th share in the property vide registered sale deed dated 30-11-1976 and 36/50th share vide relinquishment deed in their favour. They thus, claimed ownership to the extent of 37/50th share in the property in dispute. This alleged transfer took place after the, order of learned Rent Controller dated 9-5-1975. It may also be mentioned here that the declaratory suit filed by the petitioners was later dismissed as withdrawn. Zulfiqar All Shah also brought a suit for cancellation of the documents on the basis of which the petitioners are claiming title and, the said suit is being contested by the parties before the Civil Court and is presently stated to be at the final stage.
4. The position that emerges from the record and the facts stated above is that:--
(a) the impugned order was passed on compromise arrived at between Ali Husnain Qadir, respondent No. 1 and Zulfiqar All Shah, respondent No. 2;
(b) the petitioners were not party to the proceedings before the appellate authority in which the compromise ejectment order was obtained;
(c) Muhammad Saglain Shah, father of respondent No. 1 had taken the position that he was residing in the house with his son (respondent No. 1) and that his name, as he was wrongly joined, was liable to be struck off. In other words he did not claim any right including right of tenancy in the property;
(d) the petitioners claim to have received rights in the property to the extent of 37/50 shares during the pendency of appeal;
(e) the title and ownership in the property in question claimed by the petitioners is disputed by the respondents.
' The legal question amongst others that arises is whether controverted questions of fact and law and the question of title which require elaborate enquiry can be gone into in extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction .
5. The stand taken by the parties during arguments may now be taken note of Mr. Saeeduz Zafar, Advocate learned counsel for Zulfiqur All Shah respondent made the following statement:-- "The order of ejectment will be binding on the parties to the proceedings or the persons claiming or deriving rights from them but the petitioners as were not party to the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, are not affected thereby and they cannot challenge the order of ejectment. So far as the relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, it would be solely the domain of the Executing Court to execute the order in question. In any case, all the allegations contained in the writ petition are not part of the record and the allegations made require adjudication after elaborate enquiry which cannot be held in constitutional jurisdiction."
' Mr. Aslam Riaz, Advocate for respondent No. 3 adopted the above-stated stand of the learned counsel for respondent No.
2. Syed lqbal Haider Zaidi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners will be satisfied if the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the impugned order is not binding on the petitioners and is not to adversely affect the right and title vesting in the petitioners. He added that the impugned order is likely to prejudice the claimed title of the petitioners and as such the petitioners are aggrieved persons and the present petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is maintainable.
6. I have considered the respective stand of the parties and the arguments addressed in support thereof. Even if it is accepted that the petitioners are aggrieved persons, still controverted questions of fact and the question of title cannot be resolved in extraordinary jurisdiction. These questions are to be left to be decided by Civil Court of general jurisdiction where these questions will be decided after holding elaborate enquiry and after providing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Moreover suit for cancellation of title deeds filed by Zulfiqar All Shah respondent against the petitioners is already pending before the Civil Court. In these circumstances, it will be inappropriate to allow invocation of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. In any case in view of the statement of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the impugned order of ejectment is not to affect adversely the petitioners as they were not party to those proceedings, the petitioners should have no apprehension that the question of title will not be adjudicated upon by the competent forum in accordance with law and independent of the impugned ejectment order. This petition for the reasons given above is dismissed with no order as to costs.