Law: Constitution of Pakistan

Section: 11

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Res judicata Successive writ petitions on same facts-Not maintainable Petitioner filing second writ petition and obtaining favorable order by suppressing material facts-Writ recalled by Division Bench hearing Letters Patent Appeal against order of Single Judge-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11. H filed a writ petition which was dismissed in limine by the High Court. Thereafter he preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which too was dismissed and so also a review petition. There after H filed a second writ petition in which a passing reference was made of the filing of previous writ petition but no copy of order dismissing petition was placed on record nor any mention of Letters Patent Appeal or the review petition was made. By suppressing these material fats H obtained a favorable order from the High Court and a writ was issued. The aggrieved party moved a Letters Patent Appeal Held, no doubt strictly speaking section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to proceedings in Constitu tional jurisdiction, the process is in no manner endless and as it is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to the binding decisions pronounced by Courts of compe tent jurisdiction and the individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation, it has to be held that the general principles of res judicata are applicable to writ petitions also. There may be an exception to the rule in cases when a second writ petition is filed on new facts, but when a petition for issuance of a writ has been made, argued and refused, it is not competent for the writ-petitioner to make a second petition. It cannot be urged with success that if a writ petition has been dismissed in limine by a speaking order even then such dismissal cannot be considered as creating a bar of res judicata. The order passed dismissing the first writ petition in limine is a speaking order and, therefore, the second writ petition was not maintainable, in the circumstances of the case. Mirza Muhammad Yaqub v. The Chief Settlement Commis sioner, Lahore and another P L D 1965 S C 255 ref. Aon Muhammad v. Rehabilitation…