1. ' By this order I propose to dispose of C.M.A. No,2810/1988, filed by the plaintiff, which is an application under order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. Praying for an interim injunction restraining the defendant from suing or relying upon the rent agreement. C.M.A. No,2836/1988 is another application filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding further with the execution of the ejectment order which was granted by the Rent Controller against him on the application of the defendant.C.MA. No,4198/1988 is an application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. ' Case of the plaintiff is that his father Abdul Hameed Khan had purchased a plot of land in Nazimabad, and constructed the premises in suit thereon, with his own money but made it benami in the name of the defendant who was the wife of Dr. Khalid Kamal the eldest son of Abdul Hameed Khan. In 1978 plaintiffs brother Dr. Khalid Kamal obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on document of partnership agreement and document of lease agreement. Neither the partnership document nor the lease agreement were ever put into practice. The plaintiff and all his brothers continued working as doctors in the premises in suit. The plaintiff was a Radiologist while Dr. Arshad Kamal was surgeon. Suit No,2/1981 was filed by Mr. Khalid Kamal in which it was held by this Court that the partnership was never acted upon and that the plaintiff and his brothers were working in the premises in accordance with a bifurcation agreement. Hence a Receiver was appointed on the hospital which dispossessed the plaintiff as well as other brothers. A suit bearing No,143/1981 was also filed by Abdul Hameed Khan alleging that he was the real owner of the premises while the defendant was benami. That suit is still pending. Rent Application No,621/1987 was filed by defendant against the plaintiff and his brothers on the basis of the above lease agreement in which the defence of the opponents was struck off by the Rent Controller on their failure to pay the tentative rent and the order has been maintained by this Court. On his application the D.B. Of this Court has allowed the defendant to execute the ejectment order passed by Rent Controller against the Receiver. Thereafter the plaintiff filed this suit. I have heard Mr. A.Rauf Advocate for plaintiff and Mr.Shamshad Lari, Advocate for defendant. Mr.Abdur Rauf, Advocate has relied upon:
(1) PLD 1976 SC 208---Khuda Bakhsh v. Khushi Mohammad.
(2) PLD 1965 SC 336---Devachand Muljimal v. The Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi.
(3) 1986 MLD 2970---Abdul Manan Malik v. The Marine and Fisheries Dept.
(4) PLD 1981 SC 545---Ismail Brothers v. Kevel Ram,
(5) 1985 CLC 154---Sohail Akhtar v. Land Acquisition Collector.
(6) 1983 SCMR 1064---Rehmatulla v. Ali Mohammad,
(7) PLD 1980 SC 296---Mohammad Yousuf v. Abdullah. And
(8) PLD 1970 SC 180---Mian Mohammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan. And contended that a complicated question of title of the property cannot be decided by Rent Controller and therefore it was proper for him to ask the applicant to first get his title established by a Civil Court. He therefore prayed that execution of the order of ejectment be stayed.
3. The contention of Mr. A. Rauf does not hold any water in view of the fact that he had already an opportunity to agitate this point before the Appellate Authority of the Rent Controller which he has availed of and could not succeed therein. He had also another opportunity before D.B. Which too he had availed of and still he could not succeed.
4. ' It is by now settled law that a matter involving even a dispute of title having once obtained finality cannot be reagitated in a Civil Court. In the case of Salahuddin v. Zaheeruddin reported in PLD 1988 SC 221 it has been held as under: "A matter involving even a dispute of title having once obtained finality in the Rent Controllers' forum (including the hierarchy of appeals and thus the appellate and superior Courts) cannot be re-agitated in a suit before a Civil Court of general jurisdiction, inter alia because of principle of general res-judicata; the provisions contained in section 12 (2), C.P.C. Read with section 9, C.P.C., and, the provisions contained in section 15 (7) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (as amended).
5. ' Besides, the plaintiff's case is that his father had purchased the property and constructed the hospital thereon with his own money but in the name of his son's wife which does not appear to be natural or probable. No injunction was granted, nor sought in the suit filed by the father. For all these years the plaintiff is out of possession.
6. It would therefore appear that the plaintiff has no prima facie case. The suit is also barred by general res-judicata. Hence I grant C.M.A. No,4198/1988 and reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. I also dismiss C.M. As. No,2810/1988 and 2836/1988 which have also become infructuous in view of the rejection of the plaint.
7. Plaint rejected