FARID BAKHSH (Deceased) vs KIRAN NAZ S — 2026 CLC 859 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

FARID BAKHSH (Deceased) VS KIRAN NAZ 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 acompetent 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 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.P.C.; and impleadment of additional respondents or witnesses did not create a fresh cause of action---Revision , being merit-less ,was dismissed in limine.

FARID BAKHSH (Deceased) vs KIRAN NAZ S — 2026 CLC 859 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC