2003 PLP 1740 (MLD)
MUSSARAT SHAHNAZ — Petitioner Versus SULEMAN GILLANI — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1740 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUSSARAT SHAHNAZ — Petitioner Versus SULEMAN GILLANI — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1740 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1740 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1740 (MLD) (MUSSARAT SHAHNAZ — Petitioner Versus SULEMAN GILLANI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- N.A. Butti for Petitioner.
- Sheikh Naved Shahryar and Sajjad Sarwar Gillani for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11
Principle of res judicata, applicability of-- Suit for permanent injunction earlier filed by plaintiff on the same cause of action was dismissed by Trial Court on basis of compromise whereof wall in dispute was agreed to be owned by defendant by the parties-- Appeal against judgment of Trial Court was subsequently withdrawn stating therein that the parties had amicably settled their discord
Decree in the case having attained finality, plaintiff's second suit On basis of same cause of action, primarily challenging exclusive entitlement of defendant qua the suit wall claiming the same to be common, squarely fell within purview of S.11, C. P. C.
Judgment & Decree
N.A. Butti for Petitioner. Sheikh Naved Shahryar and Sajjad Sarwar Gillani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th March, 2002. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, seeking restraint against the respondent from raising any construction over the disputed wall; the suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court on 18-1-2000, by applying the principle of res judicata. Petitioner preferred an appeal which met the same fate on 1-5-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in a suit for permanent injunction, every breach of obligation by the defendants give rise to a fresh cause of action, thus the dismissal of petitioner's earlier suit for permanent injunction would not bar the second suit on the principles of res judicata.
3. I am afraid, the above contention in the peculiar facts of the case, has no force, because earlier, the petitioner on the same cause of action, filed a suit, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 30-10-1997, on the basis of compromise Exh.D.2. As per whereof, wall in dispute was agreed by the parties to be owned by the respondents. Against this decree, petitioner preferred an appeal, but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn, again stating that the parties have amicably settled their discord, meaning thereby that the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 30-10-1997, became final. Thereafter, on the basis of the same cause of action, primarily challenging the exclusive entitlement of the respondent qua the suit wall claiming it to be common, the petitioner's second suit squarely fell within the purview of section 11, C.P.C. In the light of above, this petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-1994/L Revision dismissed.