( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition in short are that the petitioner alleges that the Assistant Custodian, of Evacuee Property of Bhilsa is ejecting the petitioner under the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance No. 56 of 1949. The petitioner challenges the vires of the Ordinance No. 56 of 1949. But it seems that precisely on these very facts that are now being alleged in the petition, this petitioner filed a writ petition on 9-7-54, which was dismissed on 141-57 by a Division Bench of this High Court, and, the number of the dismissed petition is 2 of 1955. After the dismissal of the previous writ petition on 14-1-57, the petitioner has now filed the present petition on 30-7-57, alleging the same facts. The only new addition in the present petition is that he now challenges the vires of Ordinance No. 56 of 1949 and this he did not do in the previous writ petition.

( 2 ) WITHOUT considering the case on merits, I think that the writ petition should be dismissed. My reasons are :

1. According to the principle embodied in Explanation No. IV of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defenc