 |
| Resjudicata) case law urdu |
2024 C L C 1353
[Balochistan (Sibi Bench)]
Before Gul Hassan Tareen, J
Mst. SAKINA----Petitioner
Versus
NOOR MUHAMMAD and 2 others----Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.(S)48 of 2022, decided on 12th April, 2023.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----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.
Amjad Hussain Khosa for Petitioner.
Ahsan Rafiq Rana for Respondent No.1.
Muhammad Aslam Jamali, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
مقدمہ 2024 C L C 1353 کے اہم نکات درج ذیل ہیں:
1. مستقلی (Res Judicata) کا اصول:
جب کسی مسئلے کو پہلے ہی عدالت میں فیصلے کے طور پر طے کیا جا چکا ہو، تو اُسی مسئلے کو دوبارہ کسی دوسری عدالت میں زیرِ غور نہیں لایا جا سکتا۔
اس اصول کا مقصد عدلیہ میں وقت اور وسائل کا ضیاع روکنا اور دوبارہ مقدمہ بازی سے بچنا ہے۔
2. پہلا مقدمہ اور فیصلہ:
درخواست گزار کے شوہر کی زمین سے متعلق دعویٰ پہلے ہی ایک مقدمے میں فیصلہ ہو چکا تھا کہ زمین حکومت کے پاس منتقل ہو چکی ہے اور اس کے بعد جواب دہندگان کے نام منتقل کی گئی تھی۔
اس مقدمے میں فیصلہ درخواست گزار کے خلاف آیا تھا۔
3. نیا مقدمہ دائر کرنا:
درخواست گزار نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف نیا مقدمہ دائر کیا اور دعویٰ کیا کہ زمین پر ہونے والی تبدیلی غلط ہے، تاہم عدالت نے اس دعوے کو مستقلی کی بنیاد پر مسترد کر دیا۔
4. قانونی اہمیت:
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ اگر مستقلی کے اصول کو نظرانداز کیا جائے تو اس سے عدالتوں کی حیثیت متاثر ہو سکتی ہے اور عوامی پالیسی کے تحت انصاف کی فراہمی کا مقصد ناکام ہو جائے گا۔
مستقلی (Res Judicata) کو قانونی احترام دینا ضروری ہے تاکہ دوبارہ مقدمہ بازی اور تنازعات سے بچا جا سکے۔
5. فیصلہ:
درخواست گزار کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا گیا اور اس کی بنیاد پر مستقلی کے اصول کو نافذ کرتے ہوئے کہا گیا کہ ایسا مقدمہ دائر کرنا قابلِ قبول نہیں ہے۔
پبلک پالیسی کے تحت، عدالتوں کو یہ ضروری سمجھا گیا کہ مقدمات کا اختتام ہو تاکہ عوامی مفاد میں دوبارہ مقدمہ بازی سے بچا جا سکے۔
یہ نکات مستقلی (Res Judicata) کے اصول کی اہمیت اور اس کے مقدمات پر اثرات کو واضح کرتے ہیں۔
For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp
Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.
