1989SCMR836 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR836 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR836 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR836 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR836 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Anwarul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988.
- Sh. Anwarul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court passed on 11-3-1984 in C.R. No.827 of 1982). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-.
S.11--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)--Res judicata, plea of- Finding recorded by High Court to constitute res ludicata if same matter re agitated in suit--Petitioner as adopted son of allottee female claimed transfer document in his favour as per agreement of association in his favour--Petitioner's claim was rejected for his failure to present any agreement of association before competent Settlement Authority--Petitioner's Constitutional petition against such finding dismissed--Petitioner's subsequent suit regarding his claim dismissed; so also his appeal and revision on the ground that legality of impugned order of Settlement Authority having already been adjudicated upon by High Court in Constitutional petition, his suit was hit by principle of res judicata--Finding impugned--High Court, in Constitutional jurisdiction had examined grounds upon which petitioner was seeking to impugn order of Settlement Authority and recorded finding that said order was entirely legal--Same question, therefore, could not be re-agitated :n Civil Court--Courts below were thus right in non suiting him--leave to appeal. refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN. J.‑‑Mst. Nawab Bibi. now dead, was transferred a plot on 15‑7‑1971. The petitioner who had been adopted by her as her son claimed that the transfer document should be issued in his favour as under an agreement of association she had transferred the plot to him and that he had paid the purchase price from his own sources. His claim was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the ground that no agreement of association has been presented before any competent Settlement authority nor the statement of the parties had been recorded to support of the agreement. The petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. A learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition after upholding the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on merits. The petitioner filed an Intra‑Court Appeal but did not press it, saying that he would seek his remedy in a Civil Court. Subsequently, he filed a civil suit to call in question the legality of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The trial Court rejected the plaint with the finding that as the legality of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had already been adjudicated upon by the High Court, the suit was hit by the, principle of res judicata. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge but it was dismissed. He then filed a revision petition in the High Court which also met the same fate. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. This petition is clearly without any merit. The High Court in writ jurisdiction had examined the grounds upon which the petitioner was seeking. To impugn the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and re, 3rded a finding that the said order was entirely legal. The same question could .tot therefore be re‑agitated in a Civil Court. The trial Court was therefore right in non‑suiting him. The petition is dismissed. AA./M‑737/S Leave refused.