2005 PLP 1140 (MLD)

A `judgment in personam' or inter se parties is that which determines the right of parties inter se to or in the subject‑matter in dispute, whether it be corporeal property of any kind or a liquidated or unliquidated demand, but does not affect the status of either persons or things, or makes any disposition of property or declares or determines any interest in it except as between the parties litigant. A judgment inter se parties, though binding between them does not affect the rights of third parties. A "judgment in rem" creates what is in fact a right good against all mankind. The effect of an action `in rem' is to conclude the whole community, but the effect of action 'in personam' is to conclude individual only. Balck's Law Dictionary; Noor Muhammad and 5 others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee, Pakpattan PLD 1974 Note 5 at p.32 and Esra Omer Yousaf v. Controller of Examination, Bahauddin Zakarya University, Multan (2001 Cr.L.J. 28 ref. Mazhar Masood Khan for Petitioner. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are to the effect that the appellant and respondents Nos.6 to 9 owned land measuring 1 Kanal, 1 Marla bearing Khasras Nos.530 and 541 situated in the area of Jatial, Tehsil and District Attock, which was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Attock, for the extension of domestic Colony M.R.F. (P.A.C.) Kamra through Award No.A‑64/514/AC/LAC dated 26-9-1991. In the award the compensation had been awarded at the rate of Rs.50,000 per Kanal plus 15 % compulsory land acquisition charges. The appellant as well as respondents Nos.6 to 9 objecting the Award filed a Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector has also referred the same to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock. During the pendency of the Reference in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, a Senior Advocate was appointed as a Local Commissioner for determination of the market value, who assessed the same at the rate of Rs. five and a half lacs per Kanal. The Court consolidated all the References with Reference Nos. 18/11 and 51/11 and framed the relevant issues out of the pleadings of the parties. Vide his judgment-dated 4-12-1995, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the Reference. One of the petitioners in Reference No.18/11 challenged the judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge through R.F.A. No. 146 of 1996 but the appellant did not file any appeal. R.F.A. No.146 of 1996 filed by the Ch. Naeem Ullah against Land, Acquisition Collector was decided by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, on 10-12-2003 and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock, on 4-12-1995 and it was directed, that Issues Nos. 7 and 8 be decided afresh.

2. The present appellant moved an application before the learned Senior Civil Judge for extension of the benefit of the judgment passed by this Court in R.F.A. No. 146 of 1996. On 12‑7‑2004, the learned Senior Civil Judge has decided the r6fereice of Ch. Naeem Ullah filed against the Land Acquisition Collector and the compensation was enhanced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.1,00,000 and the application for extension of the benefit of that judgment was dismissed.

3. The appellant through the instant appeal has challenged the order dated 12‑7‑2004 whereby his application was dismissed and has prayed for extension of benefit to him also.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The appellant did not challenge the judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock, in his Reference by of an appeal before the High Court and out of the whole lot, one party/Ch. Naeem Ullah had filed R.F.A. No. 146 of 1996, which was accepted and the case was remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge, who enhanced the compensation amount of his land. The judgment passed by this Court as well as the learned Senior Civil Judge was a judgment between the appellant in the aforesaid appeal and the Land Acquisition Collector. It was a "judgment in Personam" and not judgment in rem. The appellant can claim the benefit of a judgment, had it "judgment in rem", but the dictum laid down by the High Court is "judgment in personam" is not attracted to the case of1hepresentappellant.

5. The term "in rem" and "in personam" are of Roman Law used in connection with the action, that is, action "in rem" and action "in personam" to denote the nature of actions and with the disappearance of the Roman forms of procedure, each of the two terms 'in rem' and 'in personam' got tagged with the word judgments to denote the end‑products of action 'in rem' and action 'in personam'. Thus, according to the civil law an action in which a claim of ownership was made against all other persons was an action 'in rem' and the judgment pronounced in such action was a judgment 'in rem'. The judgment 'in personam' means as defined in Balck's Law Dictionary, one imposing on the defendants' personal liability to pay it, and which may, therefore, satisfied out of any of his property which is within reach of process, distinguished from one which would be satisfied only out of a particular fund or to process of particular property. Judgments in which Court has personal jurisdiction over parties.

6. In the case of Noor Muhammad and 5 other v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee, Pakpattan (PLD 1974 Note 5); the Hon'ble Judge of the Lahore High Court observed that a 'judgment in personam' or inter se parties that which determines the right of parties inter se to or in the subject‑matter in dispute, whether it be corporeal property of any kind or a liquidated or unliquidated demand, but does not affect the status of either persons or things or makes any disposition of property or declares or determines any interest in it except as between the parties

7. A judgment inter se parties, though binding between them does not affect the rights of third parties. A "judgment in rem" creates what is in fact a right good against all mankind. The effect of an action 'in rem' is to conclude the whole community, but the effect of action 'in personam' is to conclude individual only. In this context, reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Esra Omer Yousaf v. Controller of Examination, Bahauddin Zakarya University, Multan (2001 Cr. L. J. 28).

8. The appellant himself has accepted that he did not assail the judgment passed by the Referee Court on his Reference and, the said judgment has attained finality, therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit out of the judgment passed by this Court in R.F.A. No.146 of 1996. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, the present appeal being devoid of any force is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./R‑136/L Appeal dismissed.