2011 PLP 2377 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 2377 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Waheed Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 2377 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 2377 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Waheed Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 2377 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fiaz Ahmad Singhariah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O.VII, Rr.11 & 13 & S.11
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 122 & 126
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Suit for cancellation of gift
Scope
Suit for cancellation of gift was rejected under O. VII, R.11, C.P. C. for the reasons that the plaintiff's earlier suit was rejected under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C.
Appellate Court below set aside order of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for further proceedings in accordance with law and the defendant had filed constitutional petition
Defendant (petitioner) had contended that once the plaint of earlier suit was rejected by the civil court, subsequent suit was not maintainable
Contention of defendant was repelled as plaintiff's earlier suit was rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. and said rejection of plaint, did not amount to adjudication and the principle of res judicata was inapplicable
Rejection of plaint, would not debar the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action
Impugned order of Appellate Court below did not suffer from any infirmity or to have been passed without lawful authority or of no legal effect
Petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.--The suit for cancellation of gift deed dated 18-3-2008, regarding agricultural land measuring 5-kanals, purported to have been made by father of Mst. Naseem Akhtar in favour of her brother-petitioner was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. for the reasons that the plaintiff's earlier suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. and that subsequent suit was not maintainable. The said order was assailed by Mst.Naseem Akhter plaintiff respondent No.2 before the appellate court and vide judgment dated 5-3-2011 the order of the Civil Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law.
2. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioner-defendant has come before this Court through this Constitutional petition. The counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of this petition, submits that once the plaint of earlier suit of the respondent No.2 was rejected by the Civil Court, the subsequent suit was not maintainable and the Civil Court had rightly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. which does not call for any interference of the Appellate Court.
3. Arguments of the counsel for the petitioner have been heard and record perused. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner are misconceived as plaint of the respondent No.2's earlier suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Rejection of plaint does not amount to an adjudication and the principle of res judicata is inapplicable. Rejection of plaint does not debar the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Order VII Rule 13, C.P.C. is clear on the point which is as under:-- "Where rejection of plaint does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint.
The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action."
4. This being so, the impugned order of the Addl. District Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or to have been passed without lawful authority or of no legal effect. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-923/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.