1. ' Heirs of late' Muhammad Shafi are arrayed against each other and entangled in long standing litigation since long. In order to resolve the disputes, efforts were made by a learned Single Bench of this Court then seized of the matter through arbitration or other amicable means (as is reflected from the order sheet) which appear to have remained fruitless. Two writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.8482 of 1997 and Writ Petition No.17380 of 1996 have been filed by two sons of late Muhammad Shafi, which I propose to dispose of.
2. ' Writ Petition No.8482 of 1997.
3. ' Abdul Hafeez son of Muhammad Shafi is the petitioner in this petition who has prayed that "the central platform may kindly be directed to be built according to the site-plan at Annexures 'C and CI',which may kindly be declared as correct and properly approved and the site-plan at Annexure 'D' may kindly be declared as illegal and void."
4. ' The learned counsel for the parties (present), have been heard.
5. The assertions made in the writ petition hinge upon controversial questions of facts and the relief sought as is reflected from the prayer reproduced above, is unusual in the context of the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Undisputedly this Court in writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving such controversies. The petitioner should either seek remedies provided by law viz. The Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets Ordinance (XXIII of 1978)/The Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979 or the Court of plenary jurisdiction.
6. ' Suffice it to observe that Abdul Waheed, one of the heirs of Muhammad Shafi, had instituted Writ Petition No.12936 of 1994 raising a dispute of somewhat identical nature and the said petition was disposed of on 9-4-2002 by a learned Single Judge of this Court in view of the remedy available under rule 21 of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979. It is however for the petitioner herein to find and choose the appropriate forum, which could appropriately adjudicate and resolve the dispute. Petition before this Court in the context of the controversy and contentious stance of the parties is misconceived and is dismissed accordingly. With the dismissal of the main petition, the miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.
7. ' Writ Petition No.17380 of 1996.
8. ' Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Zaheer Ahmad son of Muhammad Shafi has prayed that "an order may please be passed directing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to allot Thra/Auction plot against Shop No.52-A to the petitioner in accordance with the law and in case the said 'auction plot' is not available plot bearing No.A-2 in the alternate may please be ordered to be allotted to the petitioner. It is further prayed that respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 be ordered to abstain from illegally encroaching upon the rights of the petitioner in the property of the petitioner."
9. ' In the petition, alongwith official respondents Abdul Waheed and Abdul Hafeez (who are also sons of Muhammad Shafi, respondents Nos.4 and 5) respectively have been impleaded. It has been pointed out that a suit filed by the petitioner qua identical controversy and the subject matter is presently pending before the Civil Court at Lahore wherein proceedings on day to day basis are being held. The respondents have serious objection to the maintainability of this petition in view of the controversial questions of facts and the pendency of the suit. Since there is no denial as to the pendency of the suit, I fail to understand how parallel proceedings before this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 could be maintained. In Dr. M.O.
10. Ghani, Vice-Chancellor, University of Dacca v. Dr. A.N.M. Mahmood PLD 1966 SC 802, it was observed that "with regard to the petition under Article 98 of the Constitution, it is clear that the plaintiff- respondent could have asked for an amendment of his plaint in the Munsif's Court, in order to attack the vires of the resolution of the Syndicate, passed by them, on the 18th December, 1965, if so advised. That furnished him with a fresh cause of action, if the action lay under the relevant law. We have deliberately avoided saying anything on the merits of the respective contentions of the parties or the question of jurisdiction raised on behalf of the appellants in this case, as these are matters which fall to be decided, in the first instance, by the learned Munsif. The alternative remedy by agitation of the same question in his own suit, being available to the plaintiffs the learned Judges of the High Court should have declined to entertain the petition under Article 98 of the Constitution to call in question the second resolution of the Syndicate. This step would have obviated the necessity of recording the findings at the High Court level, such as could be deemed to have practically disposed of the suit, pending in the Munsif's Court. On this short ground, therefore, we consider that the order passed on the petition under Article 98 of the Constitution was not justifiable. Resort to the High Court's summary jurisdiction should not be permitted if it amounts to circumvention of the normal processes of law." In Haji Muhammad Ashraf v. The District Magistrate, Quetta and 3 others 2000 SCM R 238 the writ petition was held to be not maintainable in view of the pendency of the suit when the petition before the High Court was filed.
11. In such view of the matter when undisputedly the civil suit is pending, the petitioner should pursue the same. Parallel proceedings in the form of writ petition, which raise controversial questions of facts are neither warranted nor justified. Writ petition therefore, is misconceived which is dismissed accordingly.
12. Petitioner dismissed.