MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- This case has a chequred history and the parties have been locked in multifarious litigation. It need not be detailed here in view of the fact that the only contention raised by the petitioner's learned counsel in support of this petition is that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value who after having building plan sanctioned has at a huge cost of Rs.5.00 Million raised construction and in these circumstances the only course which meats the ends of justice is to grant respondent No. 3 an alternative plot.
2. I am afraid, this contention of the learned counsel is wholly devoid of any force and to say the least ignores a large number of facts which may or may not be in the notice of the learned counsel.
3. Earlier this dispute had come to this Court in the form of F.A.O. No. 81/92 to which both, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were parties. While dismissing that appeal it was observed that the present petitioner claimed title to the property on the basis of agreement for sale dated 1.12.1990 and a power-of- attorney executed in his favour allegedly by one Khadim Hussain. It was not disputed by the petitioner's learned counsel that Khadim Hussain had dis-owned having executed any agreement in favour of the petitioner or having appointed him as attorney. In fact the stand taken by Khadim Hussain was that the plot in question was never transferred to him. In this view of the matter, it is not understandable as to how the petitioner could have the check to claim that he is bona fide purchaser for value.
4. Be that as it may, a perusal of the order of this Court in F.A.O. No. 61/92 further shows that no copy of the agreement had been placed on the record and that in the earlier litigation between the parties the aforesaid agreement was never relied upon or pleaded nor had the petitioner taken up the stand that he was bona fide purchaser for value. It may also be mentioned that in Crl. Original No. 231-W/96 moved by respondent No. 3, the present petitioner had through Malik Amjid Pervaiz, Advocate filed C.M. 3101/96 under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C, for being impleaded as party to those proceedings. That application was dismissed. It was, however, stated that if the applicant had any independent right he could establish it before Civil Court. It appears that it was in pursuance of that observation that the petitioner had filed a civil suit and obtained some stay order but while deciding Crl. Original No. 231-W/96, it was specifically observed in the face of the undertaking given to this Court and the order passed by this Court that the Civil Court cannot come in the way of the respondents.
5. From the aforesaid facts it is obvious that this petition is frivolous and is baseless. It is dismissed with Rs.10,000/- as special costs.