ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This is a petition under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. Facts giving rise to this petition as stated therein are that an evacuee house bearing No.B-III/188 was purchased in auction by the petitioner and P.T.D. Was issued to him. Respondent No.2 who at the relevant the was a Squadron Leader sought the cancellation of the auction through Martial Law Authorities and finally the auction in favour of the petitioner was set aside by the Settlement Commissioner on 10-3-1970. Petitioner assailed tie order of the Settlement Commissioner through W.P. No.473/R of 1979 which was allowed by the High Court vide Judgment dated 10-9-1975.
Respondents 1 to 4 challenged the judgment of the High Court through C.P. No.203-R of 1975 contending that the house in dispute was part and parcel of their shop transferred to their predecessor Kh. Muhammad Sharif. Their petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15- 3-1977, and similar was the fate of review petition filed by them.
The controversy regarding the transfer of the house to the petitioner having come to an end, petitioner instituted a suit for possession of the house against respondents 1 to 4 herein and 3 other persons namely Abdul Kadir; Muhammad Akhtar and Noor Muhammad who were arrayed as defendants 5 to 7 in the suit. Respondents 1 to 4 in their written statement challenged the petitioner's title to the house. In view whereof, Trial Court framed Issue No.3 as follows:----- "Whether the property in possession of the defendants 1 to 4 has been transferred to the petitioner.
"
The Trial Court after recording the evidence found this issue against the petitioner and dismissed his suit holding that he was bound to prove through independent evidence that the property which was transferred to him is in possession of the defendants but he led no evidence in this behalf except the P.T.D. Which only shows that the Property No.B-III/188 was permanently transferred to him, but it gives no other details regarding the area and construction of this property.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Trial Court when recording there-mentioned finding was not conscious of the judgments of the High Court and of this Court referred to above which were duly exhibited on record. According to the petitioner, the position taken by respondents 1 to 4 in their written statement and the finding given by the Civil Judge respondent No.6 "amounts to gross contempt of this august Court".
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has vehemently contended that the controversy forming the subject-matter of the issue aforementioned was concluded by order of this Court dated 15-3-1977. He has pointed out that this Court had observed in its order that the house "was admittedly in the occupation of one Abdul Kadir", but the Trial Court has taken; no notice of the judgment of this Court or that of the High Court. On query from us, the learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the Trial Court's judgment dismissing his suit and the appeal is still pending. In the circumstances, we do not consider it expedient to proceed further in this matter as any finding by this Court may tend to prejudice the case of either party in the appeal pending before the Appellate Court. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the observation that the Appellate Court when deciding the petitioner's appeal against the dismissal of his suit shall look into all the documents including the judgment/order of this Court and of the High Court duly exhibited on the record.