' This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the order of the High Court, dated 17-2- 2000, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, herein, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging different orders of allotments made by respondents 1 to 8 in favour of respondents Nos.9 to 29, inter alia, on the ground that on the transfer of certain area to the Municipal Corporation, the said plots became available for allotment as independent plots. The petitioner, herein applied in the year 1988 for the allotment of one of the plots in response to the applications invited by the Municipal Corporation but instead of allotting the said plots on the applications submitted by the petitioner and others, respondents Nos.1 to 8 illegally made various allotments, the detail of which has been given in the writ petition dubbing the same as the cases of the regularization of the plots on the basis of encroachments. According to the petitioner, the said plots being independent plots, could not be regularized on the basis of so-called encroachments especially so when the applications for the allotment of the same had already been invited. The allotment orders have also been challenged on the ground that some of the allottees were entitled to no further allotments because they already had the allotments of three to four plots in their favour. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the allotment orders made in favour of different persons in different years have been challenged through a single writ petition by making general allegations that the said plots were allotted in violation of the rules and the writ petition was also hit by laches.
3. It has been contended by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the High Court has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. He has argued that the High Court was also wrong in observing that the copies of the orders of the allotments were not attached with the writ petition, whereas the same were on the record of the High Court; he has further submitted that the High Court was also not correct in holding that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person whereas he was an aggrieved person in view of the dictum of this Court given in an unreported case entitled Sh. Inam Ullah v. Mayor, Municipal Corporation (Civil Appeal No,49 of 1995, decided on 25-11-1995). The learned counsel has also argued that the High Court was not correct in holding that the orders of allotment were made in the years 1990, 1993 and 1997 but the writ petition was filed in the year 1995 and thus was hit by laches and that the writ petition suffered from misjonider of cause of action. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the writ petition does not suffer from the defect of misjoinder of cause of action. He has referred to an unreported case entitled Inamullah v. Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur (Civil Appeal No,49 of 1995, decided on 25-11-1995). It may be observed that in this authority a reference has been made to Order I, rule 3, C.P.C. That different causes of action against different persons can be combined in the same suit provided that if separate suits are brought a common question of law and fact would arise. The authority is distinguishable because the common question of law and fact does not arise in case of all the allotments made in favour of the respondents, because it has been also averred in the writ petition that some of the respondents were not entitled to any allotment because they had already allotment of the plots in their favour.
4. Mr. Khalid Masud, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents, has opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on all scores.
5. I have given due consideration to the matter. It may be pointed out that the petitioner has challenged different allotment orders made in favour of different persons on different dates by making a general averment that the allotments were made in violation of the rules because earlier the applications were invited from the general public but afterwards, the same were allotted without considering the said applications on the basis of encroachments made by the concerned allottees. Apart from the aforesaid ground, there are many other grounds mentioned in the writ petition which are not common in all the allotments, such as, the allegation that some allottees were not entitled to further allotment. It may be pointed out that when the allotments made in favour of different persons in different years are challenged on various grounds which are not common in all the allotments except one, i,e, that the allotments in the instant case were made in the garb of encroachment, the said allotments could not be challenged by filing a single writ petition; the different causes of action cannot be joined against different persons in the same writ petition when common questions of law and facts are not involved. Needless to say, the provisions of C.P.C. Are applicable to the proceedings in a writ petition and the misjoinder of causes of action is fatal to the present writ petition. The explanation that petitioner came to know about the allotment in question from the notice published in April, 1998 is not acceptable because it is not conceivable that the petitioner remained unaware of the allotments in question for such a long time. It is also not satisfactorily explained as to why the petitioner kept mum after making the said application for allotment in the year 1988 and came up with the writ petition after about ten years of making his application and after the period varying from one to five years of the allotments made in the name of different persons. Even otherwise, he cannot be given relief on the basis of an application for the allotment which was made about ten years prior to the filing of writ petition.
Thus I am of the view that the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition as being suffering from laches and in view of misjoinder of the causes of action by filing one writ petition. Hence, the petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for stay order restraining the respondents from transferring or making improvements on the plots mentioned in the application has become infructuous and is also hereby dismissed.