1991 PLP 398 (SCMR)
DILAWAR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM NABI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 398 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | DILAWAR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM NABI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 398 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 398 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 398 (SCMR) (DILAWAR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM NABI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1990.
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 18th September, 1988. in Civil Revision No.469 of 1987).
S. 11 & O. II, R. 2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they were co-owners of property in question was dismissed throughout up to revision by High Court on the ground that suit was barred by constructive res judicata as also by the provisions of O.II, R.2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Leave to appeal-- Plaintiff could not show that previous cases/decisions with regard to property in question could not operate as res judicata
Question of constructive res judicata even if looked at from plaintiffs' point of view, petition for leave to appeal would not succeed on that hypothesis either
Questions raised in the litigation having been raised and decided previously, present litigation would be barred by res judicata, and if subject-matter of present litigation could not be brought within the net of previous litigation, O.II, R.2, Civil Procedure Code would be a bar-- Looked at from whatever angle, petition for leave to appeal was not maintainable
Leave to appeal was thus refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑‑ The plaintiffs' side (in his suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they were co‑owners in possession of the suit property, the contesting defendants were wrongly entered as owners in the revenue papers) having lost the case throughout up to the dismissal of civil revision by the High Court, have called in question the revisional order through this leave to appeal petition. Learned counsel has tried to meet the reasons for which the petitioners have failed, namely, that the petitioners' suit was barred by constructive res judicata as also by the provisions of Rule 2 of Order 11, C.P.C., by contending that the evidence has not been properly read. He also took us through the alleged sale documents relating to 1895 and others which also related to the period near the end of the last century. He also took us through some of the depositions recorded in the legal proceedings conducted during the first quarter of present century. Notwithstanding the same he has not been able to satisfy us that the previous cases/decisions in this matter did not operate as res judicata. Otherwise too we are of the view that even if the question of constructive res judicata is looked at from the petitioners' point of view, this petition would not succeed on that hypothesis either. If the questions raised in the present litigation were raised and decided previously, the present litigation would be barred by res judicata, and in the circumstances of the case if the subject‑matter of the present litigation was not brought within the net of the previous litigation, Order Il, Rule 2, C.P.C. would be a bar. Looked at from whatever angle this petition fails and the leave to appeal is accordingly refused. AA./D‑70/S Leave refused.