Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4773 = 2026 SLD 4773 = 2026 PLJ 307
Lahore High Court
RFA No. 69733 of 2019
Presented By: Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J.
Rana Zia-ul-Islam, Advocate for Appellant.
Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 11.3.2026.

SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED through General Manager--Appellant

VERSUS

ABDUL GHAFFAR--Respondent

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: O.VII R.11, O.VII R. 13

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O.VII R.11 &O.VII R. 13--Suit for recovery--Dismissed--Ground--Earlier plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11, CPC--Concealment of earlier suit--Suit--Not maintainable--Appeal--Filed--Against dismissal of suit--Challenged--Dismissed--Earlier suit--Rejected--Maintainability--Questioned--Invoked--Non-disclosure--Material fact--Abuse of process--Considered--Rejection of plaint on any of grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Rule 11 did not, of its own force, preclude plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of same cause of action--Perusal of Rule 13 made it clear that although a plaintiff was not precluded from presenting a fresh plaint on same cause of action after rejection under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, however, such subsequent suit was not maintainable or proceedable under all circumstances and could be barred by limitation, res judicata, change of law or change of circumstances--Perusal of principles laid down in aforementioned judgments made it clear that for subsequent suit to be maintainable and proceedable, appellant was required to disclose that earlier suit filed by him had been dismissed, which was a legal requirement to show its bona fide and for preventing respondent to be vexed twice on basis of same cause of action--Neither dismissal of earlier suit had been mentioned in plaint nor any note had been given on plaint that earlier suit was dismissed by rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC due to non-payment of court fee--Provisions of Order VII Rule 13, CPC did not absolve appellant from disclosing previous litigation between parties and non-disclosure of same in given circumstances of case was fatal to stance taken by appellant in subsequent suit--There was no misreading or non-reading of record, illegality or jurisdictional defect in impugned order for this Court to warrant interference at this stage in impugned order, whereby suit of appellant had been dismissed--Appeal dismissed.    …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register