MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others vs RASHID AHMED and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision, thereby affirming the rejection of the petitioners' plaint in a suit for declaration and possession of land. The trial court had rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, on the grounds that the ownership and title of the suit land had been conclusively determined by the Supreme Court in prior litigation (Civil Appeals Nos. 254 and 255 of 1978). The core legal question was whether the subsequent suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that because the issue of ownership had already been finally heard and decided by a competent court, the subsequent suit was hit by the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Finding no legal infirmity, misreading of evidence, or misconception of law in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
- Whether a suit is barred by res judicata when the issue of ownership and title has been finally determined in prior litigation?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the subject matter has already been adjudicated by a competent court?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact where no legal infirmity or misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment, dated 15-3-1999 dismissing their Civil Revision No, 1681-D of 1991 concurring with the findings of fact arrived at in a suit for declaration and possession filed by the petitioners in relation to the suit-land.
2. On the application of the respondents, plaint in the suit was rejected in terms of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For the reasons that issue relating to ownership and title in respect of the suit-land had been finally determined by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos.254 and 255 of 1978 as far back as 26-5-1990.
Review petition against judgment of this Court was also dismissed vide order, dated 20-10-1993.
3. Petitioners preferred an appeal and civil revision against rejection of their plaint by the trial Court but without any success.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There are concurrent findings of fact that the issue raised by the petitioners in relation to the suit-land had been finally heard and decided by a competent Court of law and, thus, issue raised in the subsequent suit was hit by the principle of Resjudicata within the contemplation of A section 11, C.P.C. On the face of the record, we are unable to find any legal infirmity, misreading or non-reading of evidence, misconstruction of any material on record or misconception of law on the part of the High Court. In the impugned judgment, High Court has dealt with the entire aspects of the case, which are not open to an exception.
5. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, we find no force in this petition, which is wholly devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 7 cases
- Hussain Ahmed and 3 others through Attorney vs Province of Sindh 2024 CLC 428
- Ghulam Nabi vs Saifullah and others 2021 PLJ Quetta 144, 2020 CLC 1507
- ZAITOON AKHTAR Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER REHABILITATION AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD 2020 CLCN 16
- Muhammad Ramzan Shahid vs Additional District Judge Samundri etc 2017 LHC 274
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN SHAHID Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SAMUNDRI 2017 CLC 1272
- BAHARO alias BAHAR ALI vs GHULAM RASOOL through L.Rs, and others 2010 CLC 754
- Muhammad Naseem etc. vs Province of Punjab through Collector, District 2023 LHC 998