| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3482 2025 SLD 3482 = 2025 SHC 1996 |
Civil Revision No.S-17 of 2025
Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, J
Mr. Ahmed Ali Shahani, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
Applicant : Yar Muhammad son of Gul Hassan Arbani, through M/S Sanaullah Mahar and Shafique Ahmed Leghari, Advocates. Respondent No.1 : Wazir son of Sardar Bux Arbani, through Mr. Soomar Das R.Parmani,
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: VII,XXIII
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42, 39, and 34(d)
Summary
The revision petition challenges the appellate court’s decision to set aside the trial court's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff/respondent had filed two suits (F.C. Suit No.182/2017 and F.C. Suit No.10/2024) concerning the same land property. The earlier suit was withdrawn unconditionally without seeking the court's permission under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC. The trial court rightly rejected the second plaint on the ground of legal bar under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC, which prohibits fresh suits on the same cause of action after withdrawal without permission. The appellate court erroneously allowed the appeal without proper justification. The revision court restored the trial court’s order, holding the subsequent suit barred and not maintainable.
Core Points
- Facts: Plaintiff claims long-term possession of land and lawful entitlement through lease and challenges illegal allotment to defendant.
- Previous Suit: Plaintiff had earlier filed a suit on the same cause of action which was withdrawn unconditionally without court permission.
- Legal Issue: Whether the second suit is maintainable when the first suit was withdrawn without leave of the court, invoking Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC.
- Trial Court Decision: Rejected the plaint holding the suit barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC.
- Appellate Court Decision: Allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court order.
- Revision Court Decision: Held the trial court was correct, emphasized the mandatory bar under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC preventing fresh suits without permission after withdrawal.
- Doctrine of Abuse: Prevents plaintiffs from withdrawing and refiling suits repeatedly.
- Distinction on Case Law: Cited precedents differ significantly on facts and were not applicable here.
- Government Land Status: The land is government-owned and any title claims require government authorization procedures.
- Final Outcome: Revision allowed; plaint rejection restored; suit barred as per law.
Law & Sections Table
| Law/Section | Description/Provision | Relevance in Case |
|---|---|---|
| Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court may reject plaint if suit barred by law or not maintainable | Trial court used this to reject plaint for barred suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3). |
| Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC | Bars fresh suit on same cause of action after withdrawal without court’s permission | Core provision used to bar plaintiff’s second suit as no permission was obtained before withdrawal of first suit. |
| Section 42, 39, and 34(d) Specific Relief Act | Deal with injunction maintainability and proprietary claims | Defendant claimed injunction relief not maintainable as plaintiff had no legal proprietary interest. |
| 2013 SCMR 464 Muhammad Yar Case | Interpretation of Order XXIII Rule 1(3), bar on fresh suit without permission after withdrawal | Supreme Court precedent supporting bar of fresh suit after withdrawal without leave. |
| 2016 SCMR 1403 Ghulam Abbas Case | Oral compromise and withdrawal bars further litigation unless leave granted | Affirmed plaintiff withdrawing suit cannot refile without court permission; oral assurances insufficient. |
| 2003 SCMR 1704 Muhammad Anwar Case | Exception where plaintiff estopped from denying maintainability of fresh suit due to defendant’s conduct | Distinguished as facts were different; no estoppel in present case. |
| 1993 CLC 1478 Feroze Khan Case | Previous suit withdrawal bars fresh suit on identical cause of action; fresh suit maintainable if involving new party or cause | Cited for distinction, appellate court misapplied this precedent. |
JUDGMENT