2003 PLP 872 (CLC)

(1) Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata? OPD (1-A) Whether-the Court has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit under section 25, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action for this suit? OPP (3) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiffs have got the locus standi for this suit? OPP (5) Whether this suit is hit by Order 2, rule 2 C.P.C.? OPD (6) Whether this suit is deficiently valued? OPD (7) Whether this suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPD (8) Whether the suit is within time? OPD (9) Whether the agreement in dispute dated 21-3-1966 is fabricated fake and of no legal effect as against the rights of the plaintiff, if so, its effect? OPP (10) Relief.

4. After recording the evidence, the learned Civil Judge decided Issue No.1 against the petitioners-plaintiffs and held that the suit is barred by res judicata. Issues Nos. 1-A. 2 and 4 were decided against the defendant. Issue No.5 was not pressed before the learned trial Court. Issue No.3 was decided against the petitioners. Issues Nos.7 and 8 were also decided against the petitioners-plaintiffs, Issue No.9 was decided against the petitioners. Consequently, the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 16-11-1993. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed, on 14-5-1996 by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, while maintaining the finding on all the issues.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of the, judgment reported as Mst. Amina Begum v, Additional Settlement' Commissioner and others 1981 SCMR 228, contends that under para No.33 of Settlement Scheme No.1, recording of statement of the parties by Settlement Authority was condition precedent for acceptance of association. According to him since the statement of the parties were not recorded, therefore no agreement of association is existed in the eyes of law. Further contends that the finding of the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Additional District Judge on Issue No. 1 that the suit of the petitioners was barred by principle of res judicata is not sustainable.

6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the question as to whether or not the petitioner executed the agreement of association surrendering their rights to the respondent came before the High Court in the Writ Petition. No.221-R of 1983 which was dismissed, therefore, the question of genuineness of the aforesaid agreement of association cannot be re-agitated in the Civil Court and the suit of the petitioner was barred by principle of res judicata.

7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record appended with this revision petition. There is no cavil with the proposition that recording of the statement of the parties by the Settlement Authority is a condition precedent for acceptance of the agreement of association and if the statements of parties are not recorded, no agreement of association is existed in the eyes of law as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Mst. Amina (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the question as to whether or not the petitioners executed the agreement and surrendered their rights to the respondent is a question which has already been considered by the High Court in the Writ Petition No.221-R of 1983 and it was observed that:-- "The question as to whether or not the petitioners executed the agreement surrendering their rights to the respondent is a question of fact on which the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on appraisal of the evidence before him including the statements of the parties gave a verdict against the petitioners. There is no jurisdictional defect in his decision. The issue regarding the surrendering of rights came up before him for determination and it was his obligation to decide it one way or the other. 8.After the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.221-R of 1983, the petitioner has again re-agitated the matter of execution of the agreement of association and surrendered their rights to the respondent before the Civil Court. This question was directly and substantially was in issue in the Writ Petition No.221-R of 1983 decided on 21-6-1983. In this view of the matter, the Civil Court was right in deciding the Issue No. 1 against the petitioners by saying that the suit of the petitioners was hit by the principle of res judicata. The appeals of the petitioners has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below of the competent jurisdiction, which needs no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court as held in the case of Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCMR 1647. Resultantly this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./K-192/L Revision dismissed.