SAID MUHAMMAD And Others vs ABDUL MAJID And Another
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioners. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a subsequent suit is maintainable when the dispute between the parties had already been concluded in an earlier suit through a special oath taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the present suit was not maintainable because the matter had already been adjudicated upon the taking of a special oath in the previous litigation. The Court reasoned that if the decree in the earlier suit did not align with the terms of the special oath, the proper remedy for the petitioners was to file an appeal against that specific decree, rather than initiating a new suit. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Is a subsequent suit maintainable when the dispute between the parties has already been concluded by a special oath in an earlier suit?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy if a decree passed based on a special oath does not conform to the terms of that oath?
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J-- This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 26-1-1987 of the Lahore High Court, dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioners.
2. 2.We find that in an earlier suit the dispute between the parties stood concluded by the special oath taken by Noor Din, predecessor-in interest of the petitioners. If the decree passed by the trial Court in that suit was not in accordance with the terms upon which the oath was taken it was open to the petitioners to prefer an appeal. The present suit was clearly not maintainable. Thus, this is not a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted to the petitioners. Dismissed.