 |
| next case on same cause of action. |
⚖️ ایک ہی تنازع پر بار بار مقدمہ بازی کی اجازت نہیں
📌 مقدمات کا پس منظر
مدعی نے 29 اپریل 2011 کے تعمیراتی معاہدے کی بنیاد پر پہلے مقدمہ دائر کیا، جو عدم پیروی کی وجہ سے خارج ہوگیا۔ اس کے بعد اسی معاہدے کی بنیاد پر 56 لاکھ 60 ہزار روپے کی وصولی کا دوسرا مقدمہ دائر کیا، جو ثبوت پیش نہ کرنے پر خارج ہوگیا۔
📌 تیسرا مقدمہ
مدعی نے دوبارہ اسی معاہدے اور اسی مالی دعوے کی بنیاد پر تیسرا مقدمہ دائر کیا اور اپنے حق میں مبینہ ثالثی ایوارڈ کا حوالہ دیا۔
⚖️ ہائی کورٹ کا اہم اصول
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ایک ہی وجہِ دعویٰ اور ایک ہی معاہدے کی بنیاد پر بار بار مقدمہ دائر نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ سابقہ مقدمات میں دستیاب ریلیف کو بعد کے مقدمے میں دوبارہ طلب کرنا آرڈر II رول 2 CPC کے تحت ممنوع ہے۔
🔍 سابقہ مقدمات چھپانے کا اثر
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ سابقہ مقدمات کی تفصیلات ظاہر نہ کرنا اہم حقائق چھپانے کے مترادف ہے اور مدعی کی نیک نیتی کو متاثر کرتا ہے۔
🚫 ثالثی کا حوالہ کافی نہیں
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ محض ثالثی کی کارروائی کا حوالہ دینے سے ایک نئی وجہِ دعویٰ پیدا نہیں ہوتی، جب اصل تنازع وہی پرانا معاہدہ ہو۔
🏛️ حتمی فیصلہ
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ تیسرا مقدمہ قانوناً ممنوع تھا، لہٰذا آرڈر VII رول 11 CPC کے تحت plaint مسترد کردی گئی اور ماتحت عدالتوں کے احکامات ختم کر دیے گئے۔
Must read judgement.
2026 C L C 956
[Lahore]
Before Anwaar Hussain, J
Dr. TEHSIN MAZHAR SHEΙΚΗ ---Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others -Respondents Writ Petition No. 77145 of 2019, decided on 4th June, 2025.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
-O.II, R.2 & O.VII, R.11-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.2(a)-Plaintiff omitting to sue for relief arising from same cause of action in an earlier suit-Effect Subsequent suit on identical cause of action barred-Rejection of plaint-Scope Respondent No. 3 had entered into a construction agreement with the petitioner--Respondent No.3 first filed a suit for declaration and injunction based on that agreement, claiming Rs. 3,666,352, which was dismissed for non-prosecution-A second suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 5,660,000 on the same agreement which too was dismissed under O.XVII R.3, C.P.C. for want of evidence-Subsequently, the respondent No.3 instituted a third suit for the same monetary claim, again founded on the same agreement but without disclosing the earlier two suits, and additionally asserting that an arbitration award had been made in his favour which the petitioner failed to honour---The petitioner/defendant moved an application under O.VII R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, contending that the third suit was barred under 0.11 R.2, C.P.C. and by limitation Both the trial and revisional courts dismissed that application, hence the present Constitutional petition-Pivotal question requiring determination was as to "Whether the third suit filed on the same cause of action and founded on the same agreement, after two prior suits between the same parties had already been dismissed, was barred under O.II R.2, C.P.C. and limitation, warranting rejection of the plaint under O.VII R.11, C.P.C."?---Held: Where a plaintiff omitted to sue for relief arising from the same cause of action in an earlier suit, he was barred from instituting a g a subsequent suit in respect thereof-Respondent/plaintiff not only had the opportunity butdid in fact claim monetary relief on two earlier occasions, more particularly, Rs.5,660,000 in the second suit, which was exactly the claim of the third suit---After dismissal of first two suits, one summarily and the other under O.XVII R.3, C.P.C., a third suit on the same facts and agreement was barred---Moreover, the failure to disclose prior litigation also constituted material suppression and undermined the plaintiff's bona fides The entire grievance of the respondent/plaintiff was based on the agreement, which was dated 29.04.2011 and the last stated cause of action admittedly accrued in the year 2013 when the first suit was instituted-However, while instituting the third suit out of which present petition had arisen, an attempt to distinguish the present claim hy making reference to arbitration proceedings was not substantiated through proper pleadings or documentary evidence and did not amount to a fresh cause of action, which rightly persuaded the petitioner/defendant to file the application under O.VII R.11, C.P.C.--Party could not be permitted to agitate the same cause of action repeatedly through successive and piecemeal litigation, thereby frustrating the settled norms of judicial discipline---The respondent/plaintiff, having exhausted his remedies and failing to pursue them diligently, could not be allowed to re-litigate the same dispute under a new garb The claim, therefore, was clearly barred by law, which aspect of the matter had escaped notice of the Courts below-This vital jurisdictional objection altogether had not been addressed by the Courts below, which amounted to a material irregularity and warranted correction---Therefore, orders passed by the Courts below were set aside-The application filed by the petitioner under O.VII R.11, C.P.C. was accepted, and as and as a corollary, the plaint of the suit instituted by the respondent was rejected-Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Chief Executive Officer NPGCL GENCO-III, TPS Muzafargarh v. Khalid Umer Tariq Imran and others 2024 SCMR 518 rel.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
-O.II, R.2 & O.VII, R.11-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.2(a)---Omission to claim relief arising from the same cause of action in an earlier suit---Effect---Bar to institution of a subsequent suit on identical cause of action---Scope-Rejection of plaint of subsequent suit--Election of remedy, doctrine of Prohibition against multiplicity of proceedings Scope Electing one remedy, abandoning it after adverse consequences, then shifting to the arbitration without proper recourse, and finally returning to file a subsequent suif without compliance with the mandatory legal provisions is precisely what the doctrine of election, the bar contained in O.II R.2, C.P.C., and the scheme of the Arbitration Act, 1940 aim to prevent---If such litigation is allowed to proceed without scrutiny under O.VII R.11, C.P.C., it would set a dangerous precedent whereby a litigant could perpetually avoid finality by alternating between forums and/or remedies, without accountability The law does not permit a party to keep the adversary entangled in an unending chain of litigation by withholding material facts, disowning procedural consequences, and reviving stale claims under the guise of a fresh suit.
(c) Administration of justice---
--Failure to disclose prior litigation constitutes material suppression and undermines the plaintiff's bona fides. Ch. Shaheed Aslam Jaurah and Ch. Farrukh Mahmud Suleria for Petitioner. Proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.02.2023 for Respondent No. 3.