Raja SHER AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's revision petition regarding a property dispute. The petitioner originally filed a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction based on an alleged agreement to sell, which was rejected by the lower courts. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred by allowing the existence of separate ejectment and rent recovery proceedings to influence its decision and by refusing to allow an amendment to the plaint to convert the suit into one for specific performance. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claim to ownership was already effectively negated by the finality of the eviction proceedings, where his status as landlord was rejected. The Court ruled that the principle of constructive res judicata barred the petitioner from re-litigating these issues in a new forum. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the amendment of the plaint could not be permitted to circumvent the bar of res judicata. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar a party from re-litigating ownership claims already decided in prior eviction proceedings?
- Can a plaintiff amend a plaint to convert a suit for declaration into one for specific performance if the underlying claim is barred by res judicata?
ORDER
RUSTAM S.SIDHWA, J.--This is a petition by Dr. Raja Sher Ahmad, petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 19-3-1989.
2. In 1981 Dr. Raja Sher Ahmad, petitioner, filed a suit against Muhammad Abdullah and others, respondents Nos. 1 to 4, for a declaration that he was the owner in possession of the house in dispute and for an injunction to, restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession. The petitioner based his claim on the basis of an agreement for sale dated 22-1-1974 alleged to have been executed by Ahmad Hassan, the previous owner of the disputed house, in his favour agreeing to sell the said house to him for Rs.55,000, against which he had paid Rs.18,000 as earnest money.
He further alleged that he had made substantial improvements in the .Property and that Ahmad Hassan, the previous owner, had surreptitiously sold away the disputed house to the present respondents Nos.1 to 4 on 19-3-1974. The suit, appeal and revision of the petitioner were all rejected by the Courts below:
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the learned Judge of the High Court primarily dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner on the ground that the respondents had filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner, which had succeeded, and an order of ejectment was pending against him, and a suit for recovery of rent by the said respondents had also been decreed against the petitioner, whereas these matters should not have influenced the learned Judge in disposing of the revision before him. It is further submitted that the application for the amendment of the plaint, so 4 to convert the suit into one for specific performance of the agreement for sale, was disallowed by the learned Judge, which has caused a miscarriage of justice.
4. In the eviction petition filed by the respondents against the present petitioner, the said respondents succeeded right uptill the High Court. In eviction petition the present petitioner claimed to be the landlord, which plea was not accepted. Through the present proceedings the petitioner desires that he should be treated as owner in possession of the disputed house. This cannot be permitted. The earlier decision of the High Court on the matter would bar the reopening of the said issue later in any other forum, where general or special principles of constructive res judicata would apply. The finding of the learned Single Judge on this issue is therefore correct. With regard to the second submission of the learned counsel, there is no merit in the same. By amending the plaint the petitioner cannot be allowed to reopen a case, which otherwise is barred on the principle of constructive res judicata. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.