1994 PLP 2243 (SCMR)
WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MEENA and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2243 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and |
| Parties | WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MEENA and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2243 (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 1994 PLP 2243 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2243 (SCMR) (WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MEENA and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1994.
- 4. Learned Council for petitioner contended that the room in dispute is part of property NO.65 which stood transferred in his favour and the courts below have erred to apply the principle of res judicata n this case. He however, admitted that the previous litigation between the parties related to the same shop and had concluded by order of the High Court passed on 14-11-1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 22‑6‑1992, in C.R. 489‑D/1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Res judicata, principle of‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Previous litigation between parties related to same property as was being agitated in subsequent litigation‑‑‑Previous litigation was concluded by order of High Court passed on 19‑11‑1985‑‑‑Such being the admitted position, principle of res judicata was applicable to subsequent litigation and same was rightly resorted to by the High Court‑‑‑No ground for interference in the judgment and decree passed by High Court was made out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. ‑‑[Res judicata].
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Res judicata, principle of‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Previous litigation between parties related to same property as was being agitated in subsequent litigation‑‑‑Previous litigation was concluded by order of High Court passed on 19‑11‑1985‑‑‑Such being the admitted position, principle of res judicata was applicable to subsequent litigation and same was rightly resorted to by the High Court‑‑‑No ground for interference in the judgment and decree passed by High Court was made out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. ‑‑[Res judicata]. Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th February, 1994. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑Wali Muhammad petitioner, herein; seeks leave to appeal against judgment and decree dated 22‑6‑1992 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 489‑D/1992.
2. The petitioner claims that he was transferred three rooms constituting part of property No. 65 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 23‑12‑1959. It is alleged that out of these rooms he gave one room to Aitbari the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. He filed form for the transfer of that room but the same was rejected on 16‑9‑1967, holding that the room was not available for transfer. On appeal preferred by him the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 31‑1‑1974, held that the room was available and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for transferring that room to him. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner accordingly transferred that room on 22‑9‑1975, to Aitbari which order was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition but same was dismissed on 14‑11‑1985.
3. The petitioner thereafter instituted suit out of which the instant revision petition has arisen but the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment passed by the High Court on the ground that it was hit by the principle of res judicata. Hence this petition.
4. Learned Council for petitioner contended that the room in dispute is part of property NO.65 which stood transferred in his favour and the courts below have erred to apply the principle of res judicata n this case. He however, admitted that the previous litigation between the parties related to the same shop and had concluded by order of the High Court passed on 14-11-1985. This being the admitted position the principle of res judicata was rightly applied. In our view there is no ground for interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court.