 |
| Resjudicata 2nd suit. |
2024 C L C 1468
[Lahore]
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR ALI----Appellant
Versus
RASHID MEHMOOD SIDHU----Respondent
F.A.O. No.72708 of 2023, decided on 18th April, 2024.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O.II, R.2, O.XXIII, R.1(3)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54---Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act (XXII of 2012), S. 19---Suit for injunction---Withdrawal of earlier suit---Bar contained in O.XXIII, R. 1(3), C.P.C.---Applicability---Appellant assailed order passed by Intellectual Property Tribunal, whereby it declared that filing of second suit was not hit by the bar contained in O.XXIII R.1(3), C.P.C.---Validity---One of the common principles engrafted in O. II, as well as O. XXIII, C.P.C. is that unless the Court is satisfied as to the reasons given in relevant rules of the two Orders, defendants should not be subjected to more than one suits for same cause---In O.II, R.2, C.P.C., the Legislature has used words where a plaintiff omits to sue… shall not afterwards sue---Likewise, in O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. states that a person if entitled to more than one relief may sue for all or any of such relief, but if omits, except with the leave of the Court….he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted---Word "afterwards", in O. II, R. 2 C.P.C. is not used with reference to decision of cases and is used with regard to the word "sue"---When pendency of earlier suit is disclosed, the Court can control the situation by taking an action, at the earliest---When it comes to the surface that filing of earlier suit is not disclosed in the subsequent suit, the Trial Courts are sufficiently empowered to curb and regulate such situation on account of non-disclosure of information---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Tribunal, which had adopted the correct approach in the matter---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Organization of Karachi Port Trust Workers and others 2013 SCMR 238; Ghulam Abbas and others v. Mohammad Shafi through LRs and others 2016 SCMR 1403; Shahbaz Khan v. Additional District Judge, Ferozewala and others 2017 SCMR 2005; Khawaja Bashir Ahmed and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Martrade Shipping and Transport and others PLD 2021 SC 373; Malik Ehsan Ullah and others v. Province of the Punjab and others PLJ 2021 Lahore 352; Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar 2022 SCMR 1054; Kamilaaamir and another v. Additional District and Sessions Judge and others PLD 2023 Lah. 601; Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yaqub and others PLD 1983 SC 344; The Commissioner of Income Tax N.C.A. Circle, Karachi and another v. Haji Ashfaq Ahmad Khan and 10 others PLD 1973 SC 406; Karamat Ali Khan and another v. Sardar Ali and 29 others PLD 2001 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 30; Shabina Kousar v. Nargis Khatoon and 11 others 2017 CLC 822; Naveed Rukhsar and another v. Muhammad Salim Lakhani 2018 MLD 401; Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha v. Sambhajirao and another AIR 2009 Supreme Court 806; Mrs. Razia Ahmed and another v. Karachi Building Control Authority through Chief Controller of Buildings, Karachi and 2 others PLD 2000 Kar. 288; Malik Zarin Khan v. Adnan Ali Malik and 2 others 2023 CLC 1368 and Virgo Industries (ENG.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited ((2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 625 ref.
Asad Zaheer through Attorney v. Muhammad Ismail and another 2019 CLC 804 rel.
Shehzada Muhammad Zeshan Mirza, Inam ul Haq Buttar and Ms. Yamna Baig for Appellant.
Muhammad Shakeel Abid for Respondent.
اس کیس کی کہانی یہ تھی کہ محمد ذوالفقار علی (مدعی) نے ایک مقدمہ داخل کیا تھا جس میں وہ راشد محمود صدیق (مدعا علیہ) کے خلاف حکمِ امتناعی (injunction) کی درخواست کر رہے تھے۔ اس سے پہلے مدعی نے ایک مقدمہ دائر کیا تھا، لیکن بعد میں اسے واپس لے لیا۔ مدعی نے دوسرا مقدمہ دائر کیا، اور سوال یہ پیدا ہوا کہ آیا دوسرے مقدمے پر سی پی سی کے آرڈر XXIII، رول 1(3) کے تحت پابندی لگتی ہے یا نہیں۔
ٹرائل کورٹ نے فیصلہ دیا کہ دوسرا مقدمہ اس پابندی کے زمرے میں نہیں آتا کیونکہ مدعی نے مقدمہ واپس لینے کے لیے درست وجوہات پیش کیں۔ مدعا علیہ نے اس فیصلے کو چیلنج کیا، لیکن ہائی کورٹ نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو درست قرار دیا اور کہا کہ دوسرا مقدمہ دائر کرنے میں کوئی قانونی رکاوٹ نہیں تھی۔
کہانی کا بنیادی نکتہ یہ تھا کہ ایک ہی وجہ سے بار بار مقدمے دائر کرنے سے متعلق قانونی اصولوں کو کس طرح لاگو کیا جائے۔ ہائی کورٹ نے کہا کہ جب پہلے مقدمے کی واپسی کے اسباب عدالت کو مطمئن کر دیں، تو دوسرا مقدمہ دائر کرنا ممکن ہے۔
No comments:
Post a Comment