Wrong Application of Res-Judicata and Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction.
 |
| Res judicata |
What is Res-Judicata?
2025 CLC 1936 — ریس جڈی کاٹا، نظرِ ثانی اور دفعہ 14 قانونِ تحدید کا جامع عدالتی تجزیہ
مقدمے کا پس منظر
ریس جڈی کاٹا (Res Judicata)
پر ہائیکورٹ کی تشریح
متفقہ عدالتی نتائج اور قانونی غلطی
ہائیکورٹ کا نظرِ ثانی اختیار (Section 115 CPC)
نتیجہ: فیصلے کی تنسیخ اور مقدمے کی واپسی
یوں درخواستِ نظرِ ثانی منظور کر لی گئی۔
قانونی اہمیت
Must read Judgement
2025 C L C 1936
[Sindh (Sukkur Bench)]
Before Arbab Ali Hakro, J
ABDUL QADIR PATHAN and 6 others ---Applicants
Versus
NABI BUX PATHAN through L.Rs. and others-Respondents
Civil Revision Applications Nos. 5-39 and 5-40 of 2018, decided on 12th February, 2024.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-
Ss. 42 & 54-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. Ss. 11 & 115-Suit for declaration and injunction-Doctrine of res judicata-Applicability-Term "finally decided by such Court" Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below, setting aside of Applicant/plaintiff was aggrieved of dismissal of his suit and appeal by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively on the ground of res judicata Validity Term "finally decided by such Court implies that matter in question has been conclusively resolved by a competent Court in previous litigation-Such final decision is binding and cannot be disputed in subsequent suits-Principle of res júdicata serves to prevent re-litigation of same issue, thereby ensuring judicial efficiency and consistency in legal decisions--Res judicata is a fundamental concept in administration of justice, designed to prevent endless continuation of legal disputes-Concurrent findings against applicant/plaintiff were not based on factual discrepancies but rather on legal interpretations--Such distinction was crucial, as it underscored the fact that issue was not one of differing perspectives on facts, rather a fundamental disagreement on the application and interpretation of law---Such disagreement was not trivial; it was of such magnitude that it had warranted attention and intervention of revisional jurisdiction of High Court Applicant's/plaintiff's rights and interests were at stake, and it was duty of revisional Court to ensure that justice was served, not just in letter but in spirit as well-High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, set aside concurrent findings against applicant/plaintiff, as it was imperative to intervene and rectify the situation, ensuring that law was applied correctly and justice was duly served---High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to decide suit of applicant/plaintiff on merits in accordance with law-Revision was allowed accordingly.
2020 SCMR 202; PLD 2004 SC 59; 2007 CLC 680; PLD 1993. SC 147; PLD 2006 Kar. 621; PLD 2003 SC 484; 2012 SCMR 280, 2007 SCMR 1446, 2002 MLD 507; 1995 CLC 183; 2015 YLR 1569; 2014 SCMR 513 and Mst. Anwar Bibi v. Abdul Hamid 2002 SCMR 144 ref.
(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
-S. 14-Proceedings before wrong forum---Exclusion of time---Principle---Party who is guilty of negligence, lapse or inaction, is not helped by S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908-There can be no hard and fast rule as to what amounts to good faith and it is a matter to be decided on facts of each case, which in almost every case is more or less a is a question of degree---Mere filing of an application/suit in a wrong Court does not prima facie show want of good faith-There must be no mistake intentionally made with a view to delaying the proceedings or harassing opposite party-This question has to be considered whether the party prosecuted the matter in other Courts with due diligence and in good faith.
Kiramat Khan v. IG, Frontier Corps and others 2023 SCMR 866 rel.
Jam Muhammad Jamshed for Applicants.
Mian Abdul Salam Arain for Respondent No. 1.