 |
| 2026 clc 859 |
2026 CLC 859 | Order XVII Rule 3 CPC کے تحت مقدمہ خارج ہونے کے بعد دوبارہ دعویٰ کب قابلِ سماعت نہیں ہوتا؟
📖 مختصر پس منظر
⚖️ اہم قانونی اصول
✅ لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
✅ لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
✅ لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
✅ لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
✅ لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
✅ لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
✅ لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
⚖️ قانونی اہمیت
📌 نتیجہ
Must read judgment.
Farid Bakhsh v. Kiran Naz (Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi, J)
2026 CLC 859
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]
Before Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi, J
FARID BAKHSH (Deceased) through L.Rs. ---Petitioner
versus
KIRAN NAZ and others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No. 285-D of 2020, decided on 20th August, 2025.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
...-S. 11, O.VII, R. 11(d) & O.XVII, R.3---Earlier suit dismissed for want of evidence---Subsequent suit, filing of---Fresh parties, impleading of---Res judicata, doctrine of---Applicability---Plaint of the petitioner was concurrently rejected under O.VII, R.11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (C.P.C.) on the ground that the suit was hit by the doctrine of res judicata as dismissal of the earlier suit under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. amounted to a decision on merits, thereby barring the subsequent proceedings under S.11, C.P.C.---Submissions of the petitioner were that the earlier dismissal was not on merits and that impleading additional respondents created a fresh cause of action---Held: that once issues have been settled and opportunities to lead evidence afforded, a dismissal under O.XVII, R.3 for want of evidence is dismissal on merit and after lapse of limitation same attained finality---Section 11, C.P.C. prohibits re-litigation of matters directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, litigating under the same title, once decided by a competent court---In the present matter, the subject matter of both suits was identical: the same mutation and the same immovable property arising out of the same cause of action---The decree having attained finality, the subsequent suit was barred by res judicata---Any grounds which might and ought to have been urged earlier were also foreclosed by Explanation IV to S.11, C.P.C.---Significantly, the said decree was never challenged by way of appeal and the finality of that decree was beyond cavil---To allow the petitioner to reopen the controversy in a subsequent suit would be to undermine the principle of finality of litigation, which is the very foundation of S.11, C.P.C.---The addition of official respondents or witnesses in the second suit neither altered the nature of the lis nor generated a new cause of action---The relief remained the same and the controversy unchanged in substance; multiplication of parties or re-phrasing of pleadings cannot be employed to circumvent S.11, C.P.C.---Order VII R.11(d), C.P.C. empowers the court to reject a plaint where, from the statements in the