2026 PLD 88 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Defence Government of Pakistan, Islamabad Each case has to be decided on its own facts---The Court cannot force or knock out someone's suit having variegated style and nature of lis. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 88 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Defence Government of Pakistan, Islamabad S.11---Res judicata---Connotation, concept and scope---The doctrine of res judicata is based on the following three maxims: i. 'Nemo debet bis vaxari pro una et eademcansa' which means none should be vexed twice for the same cause.' ii. 'Interest reipublicaeut sit finis litium' which means that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation. iii. 'Res judicata pro veritateaccipitur' which means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct---The word "res" means "thing" and "judicata" means "already decided"---Initially, the concept of "Res judicata pro veritateaccipitur" which means, a decision of a judicial authority must be duly accepted as correct, was the full maxim which has, over the years, diminished to not more than "res judicata". Citation Name: 2026 PLD 88 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Defence Government of Pakistan, Islamabad Where the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner---Another important canon of law is that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 88 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Defence Government of Pakistan, Islamabad S. 11 & O. VII, R. 11---"Rejection of plaint"and"dismissal of suit"---Connotation and distinction---Res judicata---Scope---Order VII, R. 11, C.P.C. refer only words the "rejection of plaint in suit" which ought to be applied by Trial Court having power and jurisdiction to adjudicate the lis and whenever any of the basic ingredients mentioned at (a) to (d) in O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. are available on examination of plaint including documents attached thereto---In contrast, the "dismissal of suit" connotes that it is a final determination of controversy between the parties---The power and jurisdiction to dismiss the suit can only apply by Trial Court when the parties have adduced evidence, produced documents on oath and undergone with the test of cross-examination by opposite party and finally fails to clear the test of "prove"---Another key difference between the "rejection of plaint in suit" and "dismissal of suit" is that the former keep opens the door for the plaintiff to re-try or re-file or re-institute a fresh suit or, in other words, the plaintiff cannot be precluded to file afresh suit on same cause of action or joinder of new cause of actions, against same parties or include other parties or on same subject-matter or with addition or subtraction of subject-matter where it is possible for him according to situation---In contrast, the later strictly prohibit the plaintiff to institute fresh suit---The plaintiff cannot file fresh suit (case) against the same parties (including legitimate successor in interest or successor in office) or in respect of same subject- matter---The legal position is further tighten on the point of cause of action---In former case, the cause of action may be kept same for the plaintiff or he may join more cause of action to re-agitate or institute suit whilst the later omit the point of cause of action and paved out another way to tackle the cases on examination of earlier subject matter decided either directly or indirectly in previous suit (case) and it can only be invoked when the evidence is recorded, the documents have produced on oath and such document could be read as admissible evidence by Trial Court or otherwise while delivering the judgment---However, in both situations law provides statutory remedies against either order of rejection of plaint in suit or dismissal of suit by way of judgment---The former does not preclude to re-institute a suit while the latter is rule of conclusiveness which restrict plaintiff to re-agitate or institute fresh suit and is called as doctrine of res judicata emerged under S. 11 of C.P.C. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 88 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Defence Government of Pakistan, Islamabad S. 11 & O.VII, R.11---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.9---Res judicata---applicability---Institution of a fresh suit on same cause of action after rejection of plaint in previous suit---Legality and scope---Rejection of plaint and dismissal of suit---Connotations and distinction---The petitioner filed a suit under S. 9 of the Specific Relief act, 1877 for recovery of possession---The respondents filed an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., arguing that the suit was barred by res judicata, since earlier suits had already been rejected, and therefore a fresh suit on the same cause of action was not maintainable---The Trial Court dismissed the application, but the appellate court reversed that order and held the suit barred under S. 11, C.P.C.---The main challenge before the High Court was to "contest the appellate court's finding of res judicata and the maintainability of the petitioner's suit"---Held: admittedly the previous two suits were not dismissed after settlement of issues and recording of evidence, on the contrary, the plaint of those suits were rejected---Rejection of plaint could not bar the petitioner/plaintiff to re-institute a suit---Rejection of the plaint under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. did not preclude the petitioner/plaintiff from re-institution of a fresh suit which was permissible under O. VII, R. 13, C.P.C. provided the earlier suit was neither expressly nor impliedly barred by any law---The impugned order was set aside with modification that suit filed against the respondent No.1 (government) was rejected being barred under the proviso of S. 9 of the Specific Relief act, 1877 while the said suit was maintainable against the respondent No.2---accordingly, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the said suit after notice to parties and decide the same in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD