MST. SAKINA BI vs BARKAT HUSSAIN — 2026 PLD 177 SUPREME-COURT

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

MST. SAKINA BI VS BARKAT HUSSAIN. O. VI, R. 17 & O. XXIII, R. 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Judgment passed in suit withdrawn---Effect---Permission to file fresh suit---Court, duty of---Suit filed by appellants / plaintiffs was based upon a judgment and decree passed in an earlier suit which stood withdrawn at appellate stage by the then plaintiffs with permission to file fresh suit---Trial Court as well as High Court had dismissed the suit filed by appellants / plaintiffs on the ground that the judgment relied upon by them was not in existence, as that suit was withdrawn---Validity---Legislative intent governing discretion under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2) is outlined in two scenarios; one in which Court is convinced that a suit would inevitably fail due to some procedural defect, and the other where the Court recognizes sufficient grounds that warrant plaintiff's ability to initiate a fresh suit concerning either the entirety of the subject matter or a portion of a claim---Clear obligation on Court has been imposed under Order XXIII, Rule 2(b), C.P.C. to ascertain adequacy of grounds presented for permitting plaintiff to commence new suit regarding the same claim or part of a claim centered on identical cause of action---In fulfilling such duty, Court is mandated by Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to evaluate all pertinent factors, including implications of allowing a party to re-engage in litigation based on the same underlying issues---Such scrutiny becomes increasingly vital when the application is filed at appellate or second appellate stage---If leave is granted in such circumstances, it empowers unsuccessful plaintiff to evade any unfavourable decrees previously rendered against them, essentially allowing a fresh examination of the dispute from a clean slate---Appellants did not provide solid foundation nor presented supplementary documents to demonstrate their ability to establish title without reliance on the judgment passed in earlier suit which stood withdrawn---In absence of such critical material, returning the matter to Trial Court based solely on unsubstantiated assertions of appellants / plaintiffs would serve no practical purpose---Such action would risk creating unnecessary litigation and ultimately undermine the very essence of justice---Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decree passed by the Courts below dismissing suit and appeal filed by appellants / plaintiffs---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

MST. SAKINA BI vs BARKAT HUSSAIN — 2026 PLD 177 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD