| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2427 2019 SLD 2427 2019 CLC 1466 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2018, decision Dated: 29-11-2018. Hearing Dated: 28-11-2018. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court Dated 26-10-2017 in Writ Petition No. 345 of 2014).
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Babar Ali Khan, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Rafique Dar, Advocate
Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2018, decision Dated: 29-11-2018. Hearing Dated: 28-11-2018. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court Dated 26-10-2017 in Writ Petition No. 345 of 2014).
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Babar Ali Khan, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Rafique Dar, Advocate
RIAZ UR REHMAN QURESHI AND 14 OTHERS
VS
AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR COUNCIL THROUGH SECRETARY AND 10 OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.II,R.2,S.11
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. II, R. 2 & S. 11---Relinquishment of any portion of the claim---Subsequent writ petition---Res judicata principle of---Applicability---High Court had dismissed writ petition in limine on the ground that same was hit by the principle of estoppel---Validity---Main relief of petitioners was assessment orders which were subject matter of both the writ petitions---Petitioners in the subsequent writ petition had challenged the vires of impugned legislation on the basis of assessment orders---Said relief was available to the petitioner and same could have been included in the earlier writ petition---Every suit should include the whole claim which the plaintiff was entitled to make with regard to the cause of action---Plaintiff might relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring his suit within the jurisdiction of the Court---Where plaintiff had omitted to sue or intentionally relinquished any portion of his claim then he could not afterwards sue with regard to said portion of claim so omitted or relinquished---Order II, R. 2, C.P.C. did prohibit to split the cause of action and if a person was in possession of several cause of actions against same defendant or same defendants jointly then he had to unite the cause of actions and could not be allowed to file suit after splitting the same---Mere adding the prayer of challenging the vires of legislation did not provide the petitioners separate cause of action---Where any relief was available but was not claimed then it would be deemed to have been waived---No subsequent suit could be filed after dismissal of previous one on the ground of constructive res-judicata---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Mahdi v. Muhammad Ramzan and 3 others 1994 MLD 686; Custodian of Evacuee Property and 7 others v. Tariq Mahmood Butt 2001 YLR 3139; Abdul Ghafoor v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and another 1985 SCMR 464 and Board of Trustees and another v. Muhammad Azam Durrani 2004 SCR 401 ref. Abdul Rehman and another v. Income Tax Officer, Mirpur Circle and another 1993 CLC 1101; Nawabzada Muhammad Zaman Khan's case 2014 MLD 1417; Haji Mir Alam Shah's case 2004 CLC 1100;…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492