1991 PLP 277 (SCMR)
Raja SHER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 277 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | Raja SHER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 277 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 277 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, 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 277 (SCMR) (Raja SHER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Inamul Haq, Advocate, Supreme Court with Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1990.
- Mian Inamul Haq, Advocate, Supreme Court with Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 19-3-1989 in C.R. No.154-D of 1988).
5.42
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11
Petitioner's suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of house in dispute and for injunction to restrain respondents from interfering with his possession on basis of agreement to sell having been executed by previous owner, was dismissed, as also his appeal and revision
Respondents' eviction petition against petitioner had succeeded right uptil the High Court
In eviction petition, present petitioner claimed to be the landlord, which plea was not accepted
Petitioner, desired that he should be treated as owner in possession of house in question
Petitioner could not be treated as owner, because earlier decision of High Court in ejectment petition would bar re-opening of said issue later on in any other forum, where general or special principles of constructive res judicata would apply
Finding of High Court on issue of ownership was thus right.
O.VI. R.17 & S.11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Petitioner's application for amendment of plaint, so as to convert the suit into one for specific performance of agreement of sale was rightly rejected by High Court
Petitioner, by amending plaint, could not be allowed to re-open the case, which otherwise was barred on the principle of constructive res judicata
Petition for leave to appeal being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S.SIDHWA, J.‑‑This is a petition by Dr. Raja Sher Ahmad, petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 19‑3‑1989.
2. In 1981 Dr. Raja Sher Ahmad, petitioner, filed a suit against Muhammad Abdullah and others, respondents Nos. 1 to 4, for a declaration that he was the owner in possession of the house in dispute and for an injunction to, restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession. The petitioner based his claim on the basis of an agreement for sale dated 22‑1‑1974 alleged to have been executed by Ahmad Hassan, the previous owner of the disputed house, in his favour agreeing to sell the said house to him for Rs.55,000, against which he had paid Rs.18,000 as earnest money. He further alleged that he had made substantial improvements in the .property and that Ahmad Hassan, the previous owner, had surreptitiously sold away the disputed house to the present respondents Nos.1 to 4 on 19‑3‑1974. The suit, appeal and revision of the petitioner were all rejected by the Courts below:
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the learned Judge of the High Court primarily dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner on the ground that the respondents had filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner, which had succeeded, and an order of ejectment was pending against him, and a suit for recovery of rent by the said respondents had also been decreed against the petitioner, whereas these matters should not have influenced the learned Judge in disposing of the revision before him. It is further submitted that the application for the amendment of the plaint, so 4 to convert the suit into one for specific performance of the agreement for sale, was disallowed by the learned Judge, which has caused a miscarriage of justice.
4. In the eviction petition filed by the respondents against the present petitioner, the said respondents succeeded right uptil the High Court. In eviction petition the present petitioner claimed to be the landlord, which plea was not accepted. Through the present proceedings the petitioner desires that he should be treated as owner in possession of the disputed house. This cannot be permitted. The earlier decision of the High Court on the matter would bar the reopening of the said issue later in any other forum, where general or special principles of constructive res judicata would apply. The finding of the learned Single Judge on this issue is therefore correct. With regard to the second submission of the learned counsel, there is no merit in the same. By amending the plaint the petitioner cannot be allowed to reopen a case, which otherwise is barred on the principle of constructive res judicata. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. A.A./S‑524/S Petition dismissed.