| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 713 2021 SLD 713 2021 CLC 553 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No. 121 of 2018, decided on 1st November, 2019, Date of hearing: 28th October, 2019.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE, FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Ishrat Ghazali for Appellant. Syed Fazal-ur-Rehman for
Respondent No.1. Asif Rasheed for
Respondent No.2.
High Court Appeal No. 121 of 2018, decided on 1st November, 2019, Date of hearing: 28th October, 2019.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE, FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Ishrat Ghazali for Appellant. Syed Fazal-ur-Rehman for
Respondent No.1. Asif Rasheed for
Respondent No.2.
MUHAMMAD USMAN SIDDIQUI
VS
MUKARAM ALAM SIDDIQUI AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 11,47
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.11 47---Suit for declaration---Un-registered gift deed---Res judicata---Applicability---Scope---Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree---Scope---Plaintiff, after failing in a suit for partition, claimed that the disputed property was gifted to him by his late mother---Single Judge of High Court dismissed the suit under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Validity---Donor during her lifetime had not appeared before the authorities for mutation neither had the plaintiff made any effort to get the property mutated in his name---Judgment and decree in the suit for partition was in field, subsequently the suit property was put for auction and reportedly the bids had been received---Another suit regarding the same property between the same parties could not be entertained under the doctrine of res judicata---Whatever the grievance of the plaintiff was regarding the suit property, it could only be addressed by the Executing Court as per the provisions of S.47 of C.P.C.---Appeal was dismissed. Gopi Mal v. Vidya Wanti AIR (29) 1942 Lah. 260; Suraya Begum v. Alimul Malik 1971 DLC 31; Muhammad Younus Qureshi and others v. Mrs. Feroz Qureshi and others 1982 CLC 976; Custodian of Evacuee Property v. Tarique Mehmood Butt 2001 YLR 3139 and Abdullah Khan v. Mst. Khursheed Begum and another 1987 SCMR 1652 distinguished. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.11---Res judicata, doctrine of---Scope---Section 11 of C.P.C. provides that once a matter is finally decided by the competent court, no party can be permitted to re-open it in subsequent litigation---To bring an end to litigation and to save the parties from constant troubles, harassment and expenses said rule is made in the Code---To bring the finality of the , such rule is applied, which is a rule of universal application and in almost every civilized legal system, this rule is being followed---Doctrine of res judicata is evolved from the common law system and it rests on the overriding concept of judicial economy, consistency and finality of a civil action---It has roots under the Roman Law also, where a defendant can…
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