Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2011 YLR 2377
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2011
Decision Date: 2011-06-07
Parties: MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And Others
This judicial decision was delivered by the Lahore High Court on 2011-06-07. The matter involves proceedings between MUHAMMAD BOOTA and ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And Others, officially reported as 2011 YLR 2377. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
Case cited as 2011 YLR 2377
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Abdul Waheed Khan Title: MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And Others Case No.: Writ Petition No.12588 of 2011 Date of Judgment:2011-06-07 Reported As: 2011 YLR 2377 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.---The suit for cancellation of gift deed dated 18-3-2008, regarding agricultural land measuring 5-kanals, purported to have been made by father of Mst. Naseem Akhtar in favour of her brother-petitioner was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. For the reasons that the plaintiff's earlier suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. And that subsequent suit was not maintainable. The said order was assailed by Mst Naseem Akhter plaintiff respondent No.2 before the appellate court and vide judgment dated 5-3-2011 the order of the Civil Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law. 2. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioner-defendant has come before this Court through this Constitutional petition. The counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of this petition, submits that once the plaint of earlier suit of the respondent No.2 was rejected by the Civil Court, the subsequent suit was not maintainable and the Civil Court had rightly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Which does not call for any interference of the Appellate Court. 3. Arguments of the counsel for the petitioner have been heard and record perused. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner are misconceived as plaint of the respondent No.2s earlier suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Rejection of plaint does not amount to an adjudication and the principle of res judicata is inapplicable. Rejection of plaint does not debar the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action Order VII Rule 13, C.P.C. Is clear on the point which is as under:--
---
## Page 2
"Where rejection of plaint does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint.----The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its on force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action." 4. This being so, the impugned order of the Addl. District Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or to have been passed without lawful authority or of no legal effect. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine..