2014 PLP 1192 (MLD)

CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondents Nos.9 and 10 filed a suit for declaration before the learned trial court regarding disputed property situated in Chak Oriya, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal. The respondents/defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. The respondent/defendant Tariq Mehmood also filed a separate application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

2. The learned trial court framed the following preliminary issues:-- "(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the instant suit, therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.? OPD (2) Relief."

3. The learned trial court was pleased to reject the plaint vide order dated 28-4-2012. Thereafter, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate court, which met the same fate. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the said orders dated 28-4-2012 and 6-9-2012 passed by the learned courts below filed the instant revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the learned courts below have rejected the plaint on wrong inferences. Further contends that the petitioners have cause of action and locus standi to file the suit. It is argued that principle of res judicata cannot be applied without recording of evidence. Reliance has been placed on the case "PLJ 2004 Peshawar 194".

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The perusal of record shows that initially mutation No.414 was attested under a decree dated 3-6-2010 passed by a competent court of law and the said decree was never agitated before any higher forum and attained the finality. In the said decree, the dispute of inheritance was resolved by the competent court in favour of the female legal heirs who were deprived by the other side.

7. Reverting to the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that plaint cannot be rejected on the score of res judicata without framing of issues and recording of evidence. In this behalf reliance can be placed on the case "Akram and 3 others v. Nazar Ali and others" (2011 YLR 2969), "Sanesra Star Screen Industries through Partner v. Jamia Masjid Eid Gah through Secretary-General Trustee and another" (2009 CLC 67), "Abdul Hadi and others v. Jami Masjid Eid Gah and another" (2009 MLD 679) and "Mst. Rabia Khatoon v. Abbas Alil and another" (2013 YLR 736).

8. In the light of said esteemed judgments, it is crystal clear that doctrine of res judicata is of universal application and is based on principle that public policy demands that one cause should not be tried for the second time and there must be an end to the litigation. It is the mandate of section 11, C.P.C. that if the subsequent suit is hit by the doctrine of res judicata then the same could be considered and decided at any stage of proceedings.

9. As observed earlier that females were deprived from the property which they have to be inherited from their ancestrals and in the first round the competent court passed a well reasoned decree. Now the present suit has been filed on oblique motives. The earlier judgment had attained its finality and was not open to the plaintiffs/petitioner to again agitate the same matter before the learned courts below. I, find no legal force in the contentions of Sh. Naveed Shahryar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaint has been rejected without framing of issues. The suit filed by the petitioner in the circumstances was hit by the principle of res judicata and both the learned courts below have rightly rejected the plaint. Since concurrent findings on the face of record are neither arbitrary nor fanciful or perverse, there is no scope of interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, which is essentially meant for correcting errors of law, committed by subordinate Court. Needless to emphasize such jurisdiction is restricted and narrower. Both the learned courts below have not committed any material irregularity or illegality while passing the impugned judgments. A safe reference may be made to the dictum laid down in "2007 SCMR 236" and "2011 SCMR 762".

10. There is no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. AG/B-31/L Revision dismissed.