Law:

Section:

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 15th October 1959, in Civil Revision No.261 of 1959).   Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court---Granted to consi der points of law involved-[Whether suit was barred by provisions of S. 47, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) or by principles of res j judicata]-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 160.   Decree---(Not fully carrying out directions of judgment) Suit for declaration and possession-Judgment granting both relief Decree ex facie not granting relief of possession-Not to be read as granting such relief by referring to judgment-Subsequent suit by plaintiff praying for ejectment of defendant, not barred by S. 47, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908).   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11, Explanation Suits of different kinds-Previous suit for redemption and posses sion-(Both relief s granted by judgment but grant of relief of posses sion omitted from being incorporated in decree)-Subsequent suit not barred by res judicata-Explanation S inapplicable-Relief granted by judgment but omitted from decree cannot be said to have been refus ed-[Ali Ahmad v. Khan Muhammad A I R 1929 Lah. 833 ref.].   Decree----Not agreeing with judgment-(Suit for redemption and possession Both relief s granted by judgment but grant of relief of possession omitted from being incorporated in decree)-Subsequent suit by decree-holder for ejectment of judgment-debtor not barred Decree-holder not bound to apply for amendment of decree under S. 152, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-Both remedies concurrent.  JUDGMENT   S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The facts giving rise to this appeal by special leave are as follows. Ghulam Muhammad appellant's father had mortgaged the property in dispute, with possession, in favour of one Khuda Bakhsh deceased who is now represented by the respondents, on 21-7-23. The appellant instituted a suit on 4-8-49 against the first four respondents and Mst. Zulekhan widow of the deceased mortgagee (now represented by the 5th and the 6th respondents) for a declaration that the mortgage created by his father was an illegal…