Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLD 3565
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 242257/2018
Presented By: (MALIK WAQAR HAIDER AWAN) JUDGE
Date of hearing: 06.05.2026 Petitioners by: Mr. Saad Sibghat Ullah, Advocate assisted by Ms. Maryam Najam Uddin, Advocate.
Respondents No.2, 3 and 5 by: Mr. Muhammad Azam Chughtai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Respondent No.4 by: Syed Makhdoom Hussain Gillani, Advocate.

Muhamad Sharif etc.

VERSUS

Additional District Judge etc.

Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 199

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 11,2, 11, 1, 9

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 45 & 53

 Summary The Lahore High Court held that dismissal of a previous suit as infructuous does not amount to a decision on merits and, therefore, does not attract the doctrine of res judicata under Section 11 CPC or the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The Court ruled that the petitioners' second suit challenging revenue mutations was maintainable because the earlier suit had become infructuous due to cancellation of the disputed mutation and no adjudication on title or rights had taken place. Consequently, the High Court restored the trial court's order refusing rejection of the plaint and directed that the suit be decided on merits. Tagline A suit dismissed as infructuous is not a decision on merits and does not bar a subsequent suit under the principles of res judicata or Order II Rule 2 CPC. ORDER; MALIK    WAQAR    HAIDER                  AWAN,      J.                  Through      this constitutional petition, the petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of judgment dated 31.05.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Okara by virtue of which learned revisional court, while accepting the revision petition filed by respondent No.4, set aside order dated 04.06.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Okara (whereby learned trial court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by respondent No.4) and consequently the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by respondent No.4 was accepted. The brief background of the instant litigation is that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (namely Din Muhammad, son of Nawab alias Nibbu) purchased the disputed property vide Mutation No.116 dated 09.03.1964 which was incorporated in the Register Haqdaran Zameen in his favour. Upon the death of Din Muhammad, son of Nawab alias Nibbu, inheritance Mutation No.875 dated 25.04.1982 was sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs whereafter at the time…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register
Login required to view the attachment.