 |
| Second suit with change in pleading. |
ایک ہی تنازع پر دوبارہ مقدمہ اور اصولِ دعویٰ مختومہ — لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
2026 CLC 859 — لاہور ہائی کورٹ، ملتان بینچ
🔹 پہلے مقدمے کا اخراج میرٹس پر فیصلہ قرار
🔹 دوسرے مقدمے پر اصولِ دعویٰ مختومہ کا اطلاق
🔹 نئے فریق شامل کرنے سے نیا سببِ دعویٰ پیدا نہیں ہوتا
🔹 دعویٰ کا انداز تبدیل کرکے قانون سے بچا نہیں جاسکتا
🔹 پہلے فیصلے کی حتمیت
🔹 پہلے اٹھائے جانے والے نکات دوبارہ نہیں اٹھائے جاسکتے
🔹 دعویٰ ابتدائی مرحلے پر مسترد کیا جاسکتا ہے
🔹 مقدمہ بازی کے حتمی اختتام کا اصول
⚖️ حتمی فیصلہ
Must read judgement.
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)---
Vo
288
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 hetween the same parties, litigating under the same title, once decided by a competent court-In the present matter, the subject matter of hoth 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 5.11, 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 plaint read with the admitted prior record, the suit appears to be barred by law-In the present case, the bar of S.11 was patent--The Trial Court, therefore, rightly rejected the plaint at the threshold and the appellate court committed no error in affirming that order-Therefore, the dismissal under O.XVII R.3, C.P.C. for want of evidence amounted to a decision on merits; the subsequent suit concerning the same mutation and property was barred by S.11, C.R.C.; and impleadment of additional respondents or witnesses did not create a fresh cause of action-Revision, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine..
Muhammad Raqeeb v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhawa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others 2023 SCMR 992; Shahid Hussain v. Lahore Municipal Corporation PLD 1981 SC 474; Muhammad Chuttal v. Atta Muhammad through L.Rs. 2007 SCMR 373; Amaan Knitwears through Managing Partner v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines through Managing Director and others 2025 YLR 405; Muhammad Amin and others v. WAPDA through Chairman and others 2015 MLD 1327; Niaz Ahmed Khan v. Kishwar Begum and 19 others PLD 2003 Lah. 48; Iqbal Ahmed and 12 others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue, Board of Revenue and 27 others 2015 YLR 2572 and Muhammad Soof Muhammad Bachal and others v. Muhammad Ayoob (deceased) through his L.Rs. and others 2022 (M) SLJ Suk. 24 ref.
Muhammad Sharif and others v. Muhammad Hanif and others 2010 CLC 830 and Rasheed Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad Ashraf
through his real mother and others 2015 CLC 1127 distinguished.