DILAWAR KHAN And Others vs GHULAM NABI And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the plaintiffs sought to establish their status as co-owners in possession of the suit property, challenging the revenue entries designating the contesting defendants as owners. Having faced concurrent findings against them in lower courts, including the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, the petitioners challenged the revisional order before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioners' suit was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata and the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that previous judicial decisions did not operate as res judicata. The Court affirmed that if the issues raised were previously adjudicated, the suit is barred by res judicata; conversely, if the subject matter was omitted from prior litigation, it is barred by Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the leave to appeal was refused.
- Does a suit become barred by res judicata if the issues raised therein were previously decided in earlier litigation?
- Does Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a suit if the subject matter was not included in previous litigation?
- Can a party succeed in a civil suit if the claim is barred by either res judicata or Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.--- The plaintiffs' side (in his suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they were co-owners in possession of the suit property, the contesting defendants were wrongly entered as owners in the revenue papers) having lost the case throughout up to the dismissal of civil revision by the High Court, have called in question the revisional order through this leave to appeal petition.
2. Learned counsel has tried to meet the reasons for which the petitioners have failed, namely, that the petitioners' suit was barred by constructive res judicata as also by the provisions of Rule 2 of Order 11, C.P.C., by contending that the evidence has not been properly read. He also took us through the alleged sale documents relating to 1895 and others which also related to the period near the end of the last century. He also took us through some of the depositions recorded in the legal proceedings conducted during the first quarter of present century. Notwithstanding the same he has not been able to satisfy us that the previous cases/decisions in this matter did not operate as res judicata. Otherwise too we are of the view that even if the question of constructive res judicata is looked at from the petitioners' point of view, this petition would not succeed on that hypothesis either. If the questions raised in the present litigation were raised and decided previously, the present litigation would be barred by res judicata, and in the circumstances of the case if the subject-matter of the present litigation was not brought within the net of the previous litigation, Order Il, Rule 2, C.P.C. Would be a bar. Looked at from whatever angle this petition fails and the leave to appeal is accordingly refused.
Cited by 6 cases
- Muhammad Ayaz Versus Mst. Rasheedan Bibi 2026 MLD 1007
- Messrs Fahad Construction Company through Managing Partner vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue Department and others 2020 MLD 1057
- NIAZ HUSSAIN and others vs NIZAMUDDIN and 13 others 2017 YLR 1691
- RASHEED AHMAD KHAN and 7 others vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others 2015 PLJ Lahore 1135
- RASHEED AHMAD KHAN and 7 others vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF through his real 2015 PLJ Lahore 1135, 2015 CLC 1127
- Muhammad Ayaz & another vs Rasheedan Bibi & others , Military Estate 2025 SHC 412