IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Constt. Petition No. S- 283 of 2021

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on office objection No.1,2,4 and 5 at flag-A.

2. For orders on CMA No.6453/21

3. For hearing of main case

4. For orders on CMA No.6454/21

14.04.2022

Mr. Irfan Ali Soomro Advocate for the petitioner.

..-.-.-.-.-.-.

Through instant Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Naushehro Feroze/Ist Appellate Court (respondent No.2) in Rent Appeal No.03/2016.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that learned appellate Court has wrongly observed the plea of personal need because respondent No.4 has 40/45 shops in the said market and he has also running one shop in the same market and his plea for personal use in respect of the subject shop could not be proved.

Perusal of record reflects that respondent No.4 being landlord/owner of the Shop No.II/118 situated in Centre of Shahi Bazar Naushehro Feroze filed a Rent application No.01 of 2013 before Rent Controller, Naushehro Feroze for eviction of petitioner from the shop in question and Rent Controller vide order dated 10.09.2016 dismissed his application. He being aggrieved by the said order filed Rent Appeal No.03 of 2016 before the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Naushehro Feroze which was allowed vide order dated 02.06.2017 and order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set-aside. On 29.06.2017, petitioner filed Constitutional Petition No.S-1425 of 2017 against the order dated 02.06.2017 of lower appellate Court with a prayer to set-aside the same but later on he did not press the said petition which was accordingly dismissed as not pressed alongwith pending applications vide order dated 08.03.2021. The order dated 08.03.2021 for the sake of convenience, is re-produced as under;

“Mr. Abdul Baqi Jan Kakar Advocate files Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter for half an hour requested the Court to keep aside this matter as he wanted to consult with his client and at his request the matter was kept-aside. Again after half an hour at 10:00 a.m, he matter has been taken-up and the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition, which is accordingly dismissed as not press along with pending applications, if any”.

The petitioner through instant Constitutional Petition has again assailed the said order of lower appellate Court dated 02.06.2017 with the same prayer. Learned counsel very candidly admitted that petitioner had withdrawn his earlier petition unconditionally. The withdrawal order also shows that the withdrawal was simpliciter without seeking permission to file a fresh petition. Such unconditional withdrawal debars the petitioner from filing of any fresh proceedings on the same facts and grounds as that of earlier withdrawal petition. In the circumstances, instant petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limine alongwith listed applications.

J U D G E

Ihsan