1988 PLP 1326 (CLC)

Mst. Sughra Bibi alias Mehran Bibi v. Asghar Khan and another 1988 S C M R 4 ref. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh for Petitioners. Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th February, 1988. This Civil Revision arises from the judgment /decree, dated the 7th of February, 1985, of the learned Additional District Judge‑I, Okara, whereby he accepted the respondents‑plaintiffs' appeal and remanded the case for framing issues etc. etc.

2. The parties appear to be locked in litigation for many years and in many rounds. Two times this dispute was taken to the Supreme Court and in their last judgment, dated the 15th of February, 1978, the title of the petitioners to the land in question was upheld. Thereafter the respondents challenged it before the Revenue Court and there too by the judgment of the Commissioner, dated :the 13th of October, 1981, they failed. It was claimed that even before the Board of Revenue they could not succeed. Still later, they brought a civil suit and though the same was dismissed by the trial Court by its judgment, dated the 22nd of June, 1983, yet the learned Additional District Judge by the 'impugned appellate judgment held otherwise and remanded the case after setting aside the decree of the trial Court. The petitioners are aggrieved of the said order primarily on the ground that the matter could not be reopened inasmuch as it .had been settled once for all by the Supreme Court in their judgment, dated the 15th February, 1978. An application for action in contempt against the respondents is said to be pending with the Supreme Court.

3. Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh for respondent No.l graciously conceded that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge could not be defended on any discoverable ground. Although in para 6 thereof the learned Additional District Judge happened to make a slight reference to the decision of matter having been made by the Supreme Court, yet he did not discuss its implication or the A application of the principle of res judicata. He proceeded on a sheer technicality, namely, that the trial Court should have disposed of the suit after framing formal issues. I do not think this formality was at all needed to be observed especially when the entire controversy was clinched and finally decided by the Supreme Court. Issues may have been needed if there had been any prejudice but here on the face of it; when decision was made long ago by the final Court of the country against the respondents, there may be little occasion for any prejudice to their claim. In Mst. Sughra Bibi alias Mehran Bibi v. Asghar Khan and another 1988 S C M R 4, it has been very recently laid down that remand would be needed only if some prejudice was established: The case in hand did not appear to be of that type, and the attempt to reopen the matter in the suit was, if one could say, a blatant disregard of the decision of the Supreme Court and indeed contumacious in character. and effect. This aspect should have been noted by the learned Additional District Judge but he conveniently passed by leaving it unconsidered.

4. As a result, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned judgment/decree are set aside with costs throughout. S.Q. /A‑303/L ‑‑‑‑‑ Petition accepted.