ORDER SHEET
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
C.
P. No. D – 702 of 2020
|
Date
of hearing |
Order with
signature of Judge |
Present
Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed
Petitioner : Ishfaque Ahmed Through
Mr. Rehmatullah
Mangejo, Advocate
Date
of hearing : 21.07.2020
Date
of Order : 21.07.2020
*************
O R D E R
ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J: The Petitioner being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the inaction on the part of the alleged Contemnors, filed the
instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, praying therein to
initiate the Contempt Proceedings against the respondents for disobedience and
disregard of the order dated 29.11.2019, passed by this Court in C.P-D No.243
of 2019.
2. Learned counsel
for the Petitioner argued that the Respondents, despite clear directions have
not complied with the above order in its letter and spirit. He further
contended that whilst directions were issued to the official to provide legal
and lawful protection to the petitioners under law, in the meanwhile the
private respondents were directed to execute P.R bond in the sum of
Rs.500000/each before the Station House Officer Mithiani that they would not
cause any harm to the petitioners. He prayed for repetition of such direction
earlier made by this court.
3. A pivotal
question which needs to be addressed to reach a just decision is whether the
issue in hand decided by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2019 in C.P-D No.243
of 2019, can be re-opened by the petitioner vide a separate petition?
4. Addressing the aforesaid question, we are of the view
that the petitioner approached this Court in the earlier round of litigation
and succeeded in obtaining the order dated 29.11.2019, Therefore, similar
relief cannot be claimed by filing subsequent legal proceedings as it would
fall within the mischief of constructive res judicata. Reliance is placed on
the case of State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and others vs. Imtiaz Ali
Khan and others (2012 SCMR 280). Thus, we are not minded to proceed with any
further on the present petition, being misconceived, which is accordingly dismissed
in limine along with the listed
application(s). However, the petitioner is left at liberty to avail his remedy
as provided under the law.
JUDGE
JUDGE