' This Constitutional petition questions the validity and legality of the orders of the Rent Controller, Lahore and the Additional District Judge, Lahore respectively passed on 2-6-1992 and 23-1-1993 whereby the petitioner's application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. And objection petition alongwith various other miscellaneous applications against the execution of an ejectment order passed against him was dismissed.
2. The order of ejectment from house No,38, Rachna Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore was passed against the petitioner and his brother Rauf Ahmad (respondent No,5) on 16-10-1991. An appeal, filed by the petitioner against that order, was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge under his order dated 22-1-1992. These orders were the result of protracted course of litigation between the parties. The ejectment petition had arisen out of a tenancy which took place between the parties in 1983. The proceedings for ejectment were initiated on 5-11-1988, the ground for eviction being default of the tenants in payment of rent for the months of February and July to November, 1988.
The petitioner and his brother jointly contested the petition and denied tenancy under Dr. Muhammad Luqman respondent No,3. Instead, they contended that during the currency of the tenancy, the respondent No,3 entered into an oral agreement to sell the disputed property to them for a consideration of Rs, 10,50,000 out of which an amount of Rs, 1,00,000 was paid as earnest money. According to the petitioner, the tenancy was thus terminated and from then onward they occupied the property in their own rights as owneRs,
3. The smooth trial of the ejectment petition was for the first time interrupted by an application of the petitioner seeking from the Rent Controller permission to join proceedings. It was contended by him that he was totally unaware of the proceedings taken on his behalf and that his fictitious representation before the Rent Controller was result of collusion between his brother and the landlord. He sought permission to contest the petition afresh. This application was dismissed on 2- 10-1991. The petitioner challenged that order before this Court in writ petition whereupon the Rent Controller was directed to make full enquiry about the service and representation of the petitioner before passing final order in the matter. The learned Rent Controller did not agree with petitioner's contention and on the conclusion of trial accepted the ejectment petition. The order of eviction was maintained in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Lahore as well. The petitioner then availed of Constitutional remedy and assailed those orders before this Court in Writ Petition No, 1228/92 which was dismissed on 10-2-1992.
4. Despite that the petitioner did not accept the finality of the ejectment proceedings. He re- organized his potential for litigation and started beating the same drum before the Rent Controller once again. He confronted the landlord with an application under section 12 (2) of the C.P.C. For setting aside the ejectment order. This was followed by an objection petition coupled with numerous other miscellaneous applications. In fact there was nothing fresh in any of these applications. In one or the other way they all revolved around the same contentions which stood repelled earlier. Major contentions raised in these applications are verbatim repetition of each other. The same old story of petitioner's alleged defective service, termination of tenancy by an oral sale and his brother's conspiracy with the landlord was stereotyped by him in all these applications. As usual, the legend could not find favour with the Rent Controller or the Additional District Judge and all the aforesaid applications were dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of. This Court for a declaration that the impugned orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge have been passed without lawful authority and that the Rent Controller may be directed to try the petitioner's applications. The grievance of the petitioner is that his application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. And objection petition warranted a regular and detailed enquiry and could not be dismissed summarily. The petitioner wanted that issues may be framed and the controversy decided after recording evidence.
6. As is obvious from the above facts, the applications in question are nothing but mere repetition of the facts which were asserted and disposed of during the trial of the ejectment petition. Where a fact constituting the objection has been raised during the trial and a finding has been given on it, the Rent Controller is not bound to re-open or redecide it in an objection petition or other application of the same nature during the .Execution proceedings. An application under section 12
(2) or objection petition would entail detailed enquiry only if it raises a substantial question which was not raised or answered during the trial. Where a point was raised and decided in the trial between the same parties and relating to the same subject, it will not warrant a fresh trial/enquiry.
Indeed, the law does not contemplate injustice but it will never encourage misuse of its process too. If the course desired by the petitioner is allowed there will be no end to any litigation. Subject of course to the ends of justice, a line has to be drawn somewhere so that the parties are able to reap the fruits of their litigation. The circumstances of this case clearly indicate that the petitioner has not been prejudiced through the course adopted by the learned lower forums.
7. In view of the above, the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.