Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 678

ALI MUZAFFAR vs Mst. AMTUL BEGUM and 3 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 678
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,262 of 1984
Date1988-03-26
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan
Authored bySaad Saood Jan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court, which held that the decision in an earlier writ petition brought by the petitioner operated as res judicata. The core legal question is whether a prior judgment rendered in a writ petition filed by the same petitioner constitutes res judicata to bar subsequent proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts' finding on res judicata was free from any legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that a prior judicial decision involving the same parties and subject matter, particularly from a writ petition previously instituted by the same litigant, effectively operates as res judicata to preclude subsequent agitation of the same issues.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a decision in a prior writ petition brought by a petitioner operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings?
  • Can concurrent findings regarding the application of res judicata be sustained if they suffer from no legal infirmity?
res judicataleave to appealwrit petitionsupreme courtconcurrent findings

ORDER

1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- In this petition for special leave to appeal the High Court has affirmed the finding of the Additional District Judge and the trial Court that the decision of the High Court in a writ petition earlier brought by the petitioner himself operated as res judicata in this case. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not persuaded that the said finding suffers from any infirmity.

2. Leave to appeal is refused.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.