1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 20th June, 1989, whereby the appellant's Constitutional (Writ) Petition arising out of a case regarding evacuee property was dismissed.
2. ' As stated and claimed at the Bar the appellant is the heir of evacuee whose property was treated as evacuee. The appellant's effort to get a declaration otherwise failed up to the level of Custodian Evacuee Property. A very expressive, speaking and damaging order in so far as the appellant's case is concerned, was passed by an Additional Custodian Evacuee Property on 11-1-1961 (pages 77 to 84 of paper book No,1). In this order the Additional Custodian had left the following option to the appellant: "For the reasons given above I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner has WO interest whatsoever in the land in dispute. Of course, if the real owners are dead and he is their heir, then the only course open to him is to apply for the restoration of the property, after obtaining sanction from the Central Government. This order shall not be deemed to deprive him of the said right under section 23 of the Act."
3. ' In this very order after a detailed analysis of material it was held that the property was rightly treated as evacuee property. It may be noted here that many other persons--third parties according to respondents' counsel, nearly 80 have by now acquired interest direct or indirect in this property and all of them have not been impleaded in this appeal. Be that as it may, as further stated at the Bar the appellant instead of making the required application to the Central Government under section 23 of Act XII of 1957, approached the Custodian directly but withdrew those proceedings later, on the basis of approach to the Central Government under the said provision. The Central Government rejected his application. He again sought the revival of the proceedings before the Custodian but without any success. Thus having met failure on merits as well as on technical ground he filed a Constitutional (Writ) Petition in the High Court which was dismissed on 26-114968. This was Writ Petition No, 62 of 1964. In this decision the High Court affirmed the finding of fact rendered by the Additional Custodian regarding, the character of the property. Regarding the other relief from Central Government the Writ Petition was treated as barred by laches. But the learned High Court Judge keeping an view the nature of the treatment of the entire subject-matter by him in his said judgment of 1968 also dismissed the entire writ petition "with costs both on merits and on the ground that it was barred by laches." The appellant therefore started and pursued another, line of litigation; namely, through a suit in the Court of general jurisdiction. The said suit was dismissed. His appeal failed and his Civil Revision was also dismissed by the High Court on 20-64989. Leave to appeal against dismissal of his Civil Revision having been granted, we heard Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate, in the first instance on 20-5-1991 at some length.
4. He had argued the case on the basis that the Additional Custodian notwithstanding having decided the question regarding character of the property as being evacuee property had left the same to be finally determined in Civil Court through a suit. He argued the appeal on this basis for considerable time and took us through some material but unfortunately when we read the last part of the judgment of the Additional Custodian quoted above on which he had relied, vis-a-vis, the said observation, it was discovered, that he throughout had misled us. Accordingly, an order was passed to that effect and also a notice was ordered to be issued in that behalf to him. The order then passed reads as follows: "Qazi Abdur Rashid, ASC; has again tried to riled us in stating that the Additional Custodian, whose order was challenged in the previous Writ Petition, had by an observation kept it open for the appellant to file a civil suit; therefore, filing a civil suit is not barred by res judicata (though in the previous Writ decision the said order of the Additional Custodian was upheld).
5. "After some time when we, during the hearing read the order to discover such observation there was none; instead .There are other observations. When we asked him to explain, why he tried to mislead us and wasted the Court's time, he said that he was not feeling well and also running fever, therefore, he committed this mistake.
6. ' We do not believe him on this explanation. He has for the second time tried to mislead us within a short time.
7. ' Let this note be placed on his personal file kept in the Supreme Court; and, notice be issued to him why he should not be debarred from practising in the Supreme Court."
8. ' The case having been adjourned it has been taken up today. Another learned counsel has appeared in support of this appeal. He has not agreed with Qazi Abdur Rashid, regarding the effect of the findings of fact rendered against the appellant by the Additional Custodian in respect of the character of the property being evacuee. He also agreed that the affirmation thereof by the High Court in its Writ jurisdiction created bar of res judicata and that it could not be re-agitated through a civil suit. Regarding the said bar the following judgments have been brought to our notice:
(1) Mirza Muhammad Yaqub v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore (PLD 1965 Supreme Court 254).
(2) Muhammad Chiragh-ud-Din Bhatti v. The Province of West Pakistan (1971 SCM R 447).
(3) Managing Committee, Masjid Muhajrin v. Mst Zainab Bibi and others (1974 SCM R 230).
(4) Abdul Majid and others v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan and others (PLD 1982 Supreme Court 146).
(5) Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sindh and others (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 46).
9. ' Learned counsel for the appellant, however has contended that the approach to the Central Government having failed, no doubt the appellant had sought relief from the High Court in its Writ jurisdiction and it was refused in the judgment dated 26-11-1968 but this part of the relief was denied on the ground of laches.
10. Be that as it may, as observed by this Court in the case of Mst.Noor Jehan Begum v. Abdul Majid Shahida and another (1967 Law Notes N.U.C.S.C. 15) lathes in the context of Pakistan jurisprudence is applicable more as bar of estoppel rather than as a bar of limitation. Accordingly, it was a decision on merits of the case. Not having succeeded on this point learned counsel advanced another alternate argument that the appellant could have sought a different relief for a direction to the Central Government for issuance of certificate of restoration of property as heir of the evacuees under section 23 and that this aspect not having been decided by the High Court in 1968 the civil suit could be decreed to this extent only. This argument also has no force as the principle of constructive res judicata would bar the grant of any mandatory decree by the Civil Court against the Central Government.
11. ' After hearing the learned counsel at some length we find no force in this appeal. The same, accordingly, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.