| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 687 2026 SLD 687 = 2026 LHC 1762 |
Lahore High Court
CIVIL REVISION NO.112-D of 2015
Presented By: (MIRZA VIQAS RAUF) JUDGE
Date of hearing: 11.03.2026 Applicant by: Mr. Mubaris Khan Alizai, Advocate.
Respondent No.1 by: Mr. Abdullah Samiullah, Advocate.
Respondents No.3, 4, 6 & 8 by: Ex-parte.
Respondents No.2, 5, 7, 9, 11 & 12 by: Nemo. Amici Curiae: M/s Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh and Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocates.
CIVIL REVISION NO.112-D of 2015
Presented By: (MIRZA VIQAS RAUF) JUDGE
Date of hearing: 11.03.2026 Applicant by: Mr. Mubaris Khan Alizai, Advocate.
Respondent No.1 by: Mr. Abdullah Samiullah, Advocate.
Respondents No.3, 4, 6 & 8 by: Ex-parte.
Respondents No.2, 5, 7, 9, 11 & 12 by: Nemo. Amici Curiae: M/s Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh and Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocates.
AJMAL KHAN
VERSUS
Mst. ZEENAT JAN and others
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 15, 11
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 114
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967
Section: 42
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860
Section: 498-A
Tag Line Compromise-based dismissal without adjudication does not attract res judicata; mutation is not title, and gift must be strictly proved—failure leads to dismissal of revision with costs. 🔹 Facts Dispute over gift mutation No.1150 (1994) whereby father allegedly gifted entire property to son (applicant), excluding daughter (respondent). Respondent challenged mutation as fraudulent after gaining knowledge in 2004. Trial Court (2011) and Appellate Court (2014) decreed suit in her favour. Applicant filed civil revision under Section 115 CPC. Earlier suit (1999) ended in compromise/dismissal without adjudication, excluding respondent (ex-parte). 🔹 Issues Whether present suit is barred by res judicata (Section 11 CPC)? Whether gift mutation was validly proved? Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC? Effect of previous compromise and subsequent mutation? 🔹 Held Res judicata not applicable → earlier suit not decided on merits. Gift not proved → essential ingredients missing. Mutation not title document → must prove original transaction. Concurrent findings upheld → no illegality for revision. Revision dismissed with Rs. 5,00,000 costs. ORDER; MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, J. This application in terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”) originates from the concurrent findings of the two courts, whereby suit for declaration instituted by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “respondent”) has been decreed. Facts in brief necessary for adjudication of this revision application are that being aggrieved of gift mutation No.1150 dated 8th December, 1994, the respondent instituted a suit averring therein that she is residing in Birmingham, England and her father namely Muhammad Jan (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) passed away on 27th January, 1995, leaving behind the applicant as well as the respondents herein as his legal heirs. It is asserted in the plaint that the applicant succeeded in getting mutation No.1150 dated 8th December, 1994…