Case Details

Citation(s)
1973 SLG 3156 = 1973 SLD 3156 = 1973 PLD 463
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1032 of 1972, decided on 28th July 1972.
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J
Mian Nazir Akhtar for Petitioner.

Mst. KHADIJA KHATOON-Petitioner

VERSUS

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWAL PINDI AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11---Res judicata -Adverse finding against successful party-Does not operate as res-judicata in subsequent suit between same parties. It is now well established that adverse finding against the successful party is not a res judicata in a subsequent suit between the parties. If a decree is one of dismissal in favour of the defendant but there is a finding adverse to him on any point a plea of res judicata cannot be based upon the decision, because the defendant having succeeded on the other plea has co-occasion to challenge that order in appeal. Midnapur Zamindar Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy A I R 1922 P C 241 ; Abdul Qayum and others v. Abdul Rahmam and others A I R 1933 Oudh 439 ; Radha Hembirrao Patti and others v. Dinkarrao Hambirrao Patti A I R 1937 Bom. 208 I Parathanath and another v. Rameshwar Pratap Sahl A I R 1938 All. 491 ; Abdul Rahman Mullick and others v. Azahar Ali Khan, A I R 193 5 Cal. 733 ; Goglneni Bapayya v. Gogineni Rame kirshnayya and others A I R 1945 Mad. 39 ; Thakur Magundeo v. Thakur Mahadev Singh 18 Cal. 647 and Abhey Ram and another v. Jhanda and others A I R 1929 All. 910 rel.                                                                                                                                             ORDER Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner are husband and wife. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner in the Family Court, Rawalpindi The petitioner resisted the suit and pleaded that the respondent had been treating her with cruelty and that he had also failed to pay the prompt dower. The trial Court framed the two issues, viz. (1) Whether prompt dower of Rs. 1,500.00 has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, if not, what is its effect on the suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff treated the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register