1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-This petition is from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 20-11-1974 dismissing in limine writ petition No. 1568-R of 1974 by the petitioner Company.
2. The dispute concerns land measuring 28 kanals 15 marlas situate in village Amar Sidhu, Tehsil and District Lahore which once belonged to Harnam Singh and others who are now evacuees. It is alleged that by an agreement dated 6-1-1947 the evacuee owners agreed to sell the land to one Bagga Singh (husband of Mst. Haleem Begum respondent 9 herein) who at the time of Independence embraced Islam and was named Karam Ilahi. After the death of her husband respondent 9 applied to the Custodian for permission to sue the evacuee owners for the specific performance of the agreement dated 6-1-1947. The permission was refused. Later respondent 9 instituted a suit for possession of the land by specific performance of the said agreement in favour of her deceased husband. The suit culminated in ex parte decree in her favour. Basing herself on the decree in her favour respondent 9 moved the Chief Settlement Commissioner to give effect to the decree of the Civil Court in her favour in special Jamabandi. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, however, declined to recognise the decree unless it was confirmed by the Custodian. A writ petition filed by respondent 9 in the High Court to call in question the order of the Custodian refusing to give effect to the ex parts decree having failed the matter was ultimately brought to this Court and it was held that the ex parte decree in her favour was corum non judice on the ground that Custodian having once refused to her permission to sue the evacuee-owners, no suit for specific performance of the agreement was competent. The judgment of this Court is, reported as Mst. Haleema Bibi v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner 1971 SCMR 760.
3. While the above litigation was pending, it appears that respondent 9 purported to sell the land in dispute by means of sale decd dated 30-7-1962 to respondent 5 herein who in turn further sold it on 6-11-1968 to the petitioner company.
4. On the basis of the sale in its favour the petitioner again moved the Custodian for a declaration that by virtue of the sale in its favour it has become a sole owner of the land. The learned Custodian again by order dated 28-3-1974 held that the aforesaid judgment of this Court finally determines the evacuee character of the land notwithstanding ex parte decree in favour of respondent 9 and therefore she was not competent to transfer the property to respondent 5 or for that matter to the petitioner Company. The above order has been maintained by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
5. As in the High Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notwithstanding the two orders of the Custodian and the judgment of the Supreme Court the land in dispute had never been `treated" as evacuee property and therefore it cannot now be so treated vide section 3 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957. As rightly held by the High Court the argument is fallacious. The fact that respondent No. 9's application for confirmation of the agreement of sale was refused by the Custodian, makes it clear that the land has been treated as evacuee. Not only that it has since been allotted to respondents 6 to 8 it satisfaction of their claims for land.
6. In the above circumstances there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.