Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1353 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Mst. SAKINA vs NOOR MUHAMMAD Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1353 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Mst. SAKINA VS NOOR MUHAMMAD Ss.39, 42, 54 & 55---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Res judicata---Scope---Rejection of plaint, application for---Maintainability of a suit envisaged by Cl.(d) of R.11 of O.VII, C.P.C.---Suit for declaration, cancellation and permanent injunction---Barred by law---Plaint of the petitioner was rejected by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court---Validity---Prior to the suit of petitioner, the respondents instituted a civil suit against the petitioner for declaration, possession and perpetual injunction in respect of land bearing survey No.155 measuring 16 acres---Suit was contested by the petitioner and others---Said suit was decided in favour of respondents and it was held that the husband of the petitioner had left the suit land bearing survey No.155 in favour of Government and retained land of survey No.154---Said judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court---Concurrent judgments were also affirmed on civil revision petition by the High Court---In her subsequent suit, the petitioner had impugned the genuineness of mutation of the respondent and claimed that her husband was the recorded owner of the suit land---Issue raised by the petitioner in her suit was, directly, substantially, collaterally and incidentally, in issue in the former civil suit of the respondent---Issue of genuineness of the impugned mutation and resumption of suit land by the Government and its subsequent transfer in the name of the respondent was finally heard and decided by a competent Court of law---Petitioner instituted her subsequent suit after decision of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court---When she instituted her subsequent suit, the issue of genuineness of the impugned mutation entry was concurrently decided in the affirmative by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court in favour of the respondent---Taking congnizance of a suit means to try a civil suit i.e. summoning defendant, framing of issues and recording of evidence; therefore, the existence of any such judgment which prevented trial of a subsequent suit is relevant and binding in a subsequent civil suit as res judicata---Production of certified copies of pleadings and former judgment were sufficient proof of existence of former judgment of a competent Court of law; therefore, principle of res judicata not only bars institution of a subsequent suit rather prevents the trial of a subsequent suit through recording of evidence---If such practice is allowed to prevail then, the principle/doctrine of res judicata would lose its legal sanctity/significance---Principle of res judicata is based on public policy that it is in the interest of State that there should be an end of litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the same cause---If it is declared that res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact, then there would be no end of subsequent litigations---Civil petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2024 CLC 1353 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Mst. SAKINA vs NOOR MUHAMMAD Ss — 2024 CLC 1353 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC