2017 PLP 222 (YLR)

LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.

This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2014 of the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi-I, Swat whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 26.09.2013 of the learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi-V, Swat has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of mutation. It was the petitioner's case that the entire suit land, fully described in the plaint, was his ancestral property and the respondents had no concern with it. He had further prayed that mutation No. 594 attested in favour of the respondents on 14.07.2011 be declared as illegal and ineffective upon his rights. Respondents refuted the petitioner's claim and opted to file an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The learned trial Court vide order dated 26.09.2013 accepted the application and rejected the plaint whereagainst petitioner went in appeal but the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2014 concurred with the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, hence, the instant revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on no count the plaint was liable for rejection as quite different issue had been raised therein which ought to have been decided on merit instead of disposing it through invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The learned counsel argued that the earlier suit though was between same parties but had no nexus with the issue which is subject matter of the instant plaint.

4. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondents defended the orders/judgments impugned by the petitioner.

5. Arguments heard and record gone through.

6. Perusal of the case record would show that admittedly petitioner had earlier filed a declaratory suit against the respondents on 26.10.2011 and the learned trial Court vide order dated 08.02.2012 had rejected his plaint while invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. As the ibid order of rejection has not been challenged in appeal, therefore, same has attained finality. Record reflects that on same facts and cause of action petitioner brought second suit. Though learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that there was no commonality in both the causes of action but when perused it appeared to this Court that substantially both the suits were on same cause of action. For the purpose of convenience prayers contained in both the plaints are reproduced as under:-- PLAINT OF THE EARLIER SUIT: PLAINT OF THE SECOND SUIT:

7. Record reflects that in the earlier suit respondents had filed application on 16-01-2012 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that they were legal heirs of late Gul Khan and the suit property had rightly come to them. It was also averred in the application that the petitioner had admitted before the Deputy District Officer (Judicial) that the suit property was legacy of late Gul Khan. Accepting the ibid application, the learned trial Court held on 08-02-2012 that the questioned mutation was not liable for cancellation and that the petitioner had no cause of action to file the suit in order to deprive the respondents of the legacy of their predecessor. By holding so the learned trial Court had non-suited the petitioner forever whereafter it was not legal for him to take refuge under Order VII Rule 13, C.P.C. No doubt ibid Order authorizes a person to file a fresh plaint when his plaint is rejected on the grounds mentioned under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. but it cannot be contemplated that in all cases where plaint is rejected, plaintiff would be allowed to bring a second on the same cause of action. True that when plaint is rejected for non-affixation of proper Court fee or for any other technical reason then of course a plaintiff would be entitled to bring a second suit on the same cause of action subject to law of limitation but if the plaint is rejected on merit after proper adjudication of the core issue e.g. as to non-existence of the cause of action then same will legally operate as res-judicata and consequently a plaintiff would not be allowed to file a second suit on the same cause of action. Wisdom is derived from 2009 SCMR 1079.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that second plaint was about a different cause of action as disclosed in para No.5 of the plaint. Ibid contention has no force in it as substantially this fact was subject matter of the earlier suit. If not, even then petitioner is debarred to raise the same in second suit as per provision of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C.

9. Both the courts below have properly attended to the facts of the case and law on the subject and committed no illegality while passing the orders/ judgments impugned by the petitioner. Therefore, the instant revision petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed. ZC/268/P Revision dismissed.