Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1997 MLD 2382

BASHIR AHMAD vs Sh. ABDUL AZIZ And 2 Other

Citation1997 MLD 2382
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No. 1417 of 1995
Date1995-04-23
Judge(s)Karamat Nazir Bhandari
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

By way of this Constitutional petition the petitioner, proposed lessee, allegedly successful in the auction of lease rights, seeks a direction to Administrator, Municipal Committee to execute the necessary agreement and to allow the petitioner to assume his responsibilities as the lessee.

Report and parawise comments were called, which have been submitted today in Court.

2. It is admitted that no formal agreement of lease has been executed. In the circumstances, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that this petition is premature. He further submits that even if the agreement had been executed, the breach of it could not have been corrected by a writ of mandamus. It is maintained. That petitioner could only have sued his claimfor breach of contract or' specific performance in the Civil Court. It is also pointed out that before filing this petition a civil suit dated 28-2-1995 was filed on the identical subject-matter and for an identical relief as prayed for in this petition. It is urged that the fact of filing of suit has been deliberately suppressed in this writ petition and as such the same merits dismissal on this short ground alone.

3. Learned counsel was confronted with this situation and asked to explain as to why the fact of filing of suit has been suppressed from this Court and as to why in the presence of civil suit this writ was lodged on the same subject-matter and for the same relief. Learned counsel has absolutely no answer to these' questions. I am also amazed at the audacity of the petitioner to simultaneously pursuing both the suit and the writ petition and to suppress the factum of filing of suit from this Court. For this reason alone the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.

4. Since the petitioner has been guilty of suppression of material fact and has dragged the respondents in this Court, the petitioner is imposed special costs of Rs.10,000 (rupees ten thousands).

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch