1. ' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.----Leave to appeal is sought against orders, dated 28-5-1997 and 24-7- 1997 made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.Ms. Nos.2 of 1997 and 4 of 1997 in Writ Petition No.9023 of 1996 which read thus:-- "28-5-1997. Mr. M.M. Alam Chaudhry, Advocate for the Applicants.
2. C.M. 2 OF 1997.
3. ' It is argued that the writ petitioner moved an application under Order VII; Rule 11 of the, C.P.C. which was dismissed by the Trial Court, while his revision was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, and he has challenged these orders of respondents Nos.3 and 4 through this Constitutional Petition and this Court was pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order, and the trial Court in view of the order has stopped the proceedings. It is clear from the fact, on the file that the interpretation put by the trial Court is illogical. The trial Court has not been restrained from proceedings with the trial.
(2) In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of.
4. "C.M. NO.4 OF 1997 ' 24-7-1997. Mian Ata-ur-Rehman, Advocate.
5. ' Notice for 31-7-1997 for which, date Civil Miscellaneous No.3 of 1997 should also be fixed before the available Bench."
6. Very briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition at this stage are that respondent No.1 Muhammad Javed filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against Maqbool Ahmed and others, "... the General Power of Attorney, of agreement to sell". This suit is claimed by the petitioner to have been made in the fourth round of litigating and that he brought to the notice of the learned Civil Judge seized of the same that during the prolonged litigation his two brothers, mother and sister had died and the family business had been ruined. The respondents are litigating even after the decision by the superior Courts, including this Court, by taking out 'fresh proceedings' every now and then. He filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. contending that the present suit was not maintainable "... being previously decided by the superior Courts but the Civil Judge dismissed the application' on 8-4-1995 erroneously entertained the case by ignoring the previous order of the superior Courts". Petitioner's revision petition against order, dated 8-4-1995 having been dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore he resorted to Article 199 of the Constitution and the case was admitted to regular hearing on 30-6-1996. In the stay matter, after issuing notice for 30-6-1996, the operation of the impugned order was suspended, meanwhile. It was on 28-5-1997 that the impugned order was made in Civil Miscellaneous No.2 of 1997 in Writ Petition No.9023 of 1996.
7. Mian Ata-ur-Rehman learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to even so much as obtained that the impugned order, dated 28-5-1997 could not be made by the High Court. Writ Petition No.9023 of 1996 is still pending and the proceedings in the suit having not been stayed during the pendency of the Constitutional petition by the High Court, no ground for granting leave to appeal has been made out. The same, holds goods for the order, dated 24-7-1997 made in petitioner's Civil Miscellaneous No.4 of 1997 in Writ Petition No.9023 of 1996. It may be mentioned for facility of reference, that in the said Civil Miscellaneous No.4 of 1997 the writ petitioner had himself prayed for the stay of proceedings in the stilt before Mr. Riaz Khokhar, Civil Judge, Lahore ' .. till the decision of this writ petition in the_ interest of justice, as no fresh proceedings can be initiated against the order of the. Supreme Court of Pakistan and High Court". Notice for 31-7-1997 was issued to the other side and it was further directed that "Civil Miscellaneous No.3 of 1997 should also be fixed before the available Bench". In this view of the matter, the petitioner is still within his right to pursue his cause at the level of the High Court as also the trial Court. The petition is sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. So be it. Leave to appeal is refused.