RUSTAM S.SIDHWA, J.--This is a petition by Dr. Raja Sher Ahmad, petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 19-3-1989.
2. In 1981 Dr. Raja Sher Ahmad, petitioner, filed a suit against Muhammad Abdullah and others, respondents Nos. 1 to 4, for a declaration that he was the owner in possession of the house in dispute and for an injunction to, restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession. The petitioner based his claim on the basis of an agreement for sale dated 22-1-1974 alleged to have been executed by Ahmad Hassan, the previous owner of the disputed house, in his favour agreeing to sell the said house to him for Rs.55,000, against which he had paid Rs.18,000 as earnest money.
He further alleged that he had made substantial improvements in the .Property and that Ahmad Hassan, the previous owner, had surreptitiously sold away the disputed house to the present respondents Nos.1 to 4 on 19-3-1974. The suit, appeal and revision of the petitioner were all rejected by the Courts below:
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the learned Judge of the High Court primarily dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner on the ground that the respondents had filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner, which had succeeded, and an order of ejectment was pending against him, and a suit for recovery of rent by the said respondents had also been decreed against the petitioner, whereas these matters should not have influenced the learned Judge in disposing of the revision before him. It is further submitted that the application for the amendment of the plaint, so 4 to convert the suit into one for specific performance of the agreement for sale, was disallowed by the learned Judge, which has caused a miscarriage of justice.
4. In the eviction petition filed by the respondents against the present petitioner, the said respondents succeeded right uptill the High Court. In eviction petition the present petitioner claimed to be the landlord, which plea was not accepted. Through the present proceedings the petitioner desires that he should be treated as owner in possession of the disputed house. This cannot be permitted. The earlier decision of the High Court on the matter would bar the reopening of the said issue later in any other forum, where general or special principles of constructive res judicata would apply. The finding of the learned Single Judge on this issue is therefore correct. With regard to the second submission of the learned counsel, there is no merit in the same. By amending the plaint the petitioner cannot be allowed to reopen a case, which otherwise is barred on the principle of constructive res judicata. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.