Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: 11, O.VII, Rr.1, 113

Law: Registration Act (XVI of 1908)

Section: 17, 49

Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: 54, 113

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 3, 41

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 72

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)  S.11 & O.VII, Rr.1, 113---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss.17 & 49---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art.113---Rejection of plaint---Fresh suit on same cause of action, institution of ---Maintainability---Res judicata---Applicability---Seeking specific performance of an agreement---Limitation, commencement of---Appellants claimed they bought and took possession of suit property through agreement dated 10.11.1999 from the original allottee through his attorney, obtained NOC/approval, and constructed a house; whereas, respondent No.1 claimed ownership on the basis of earlier sale agreement; respondent No.1 filed suit for declaration/possession but the plaint was rejected; respondent No.1 then filed suit before the High Court (original side) including specific performance and cancellation/possession claims; the Single Judge decreed the suit, prompting the filing of present appeals---Issue for determination before the Divisional Bench of the High Court were as to (i) Whether the principle of res judicata was correctly applied in the impugned judgment? (ii.)Whether the 2nd suit was barred under the law of limitation? (iii.)Whether there had been any misreading / misapplication of evidence relied upon in the impugned judgement? ---Held: The basic defect in the 1st initial suit filed by respondent No.1, was still present at the time they filed the 2nd suit---Furthermore, the intent of seeking a declaration and possession was present in the2nd suit, despite the initial order expressly prohibiting the same---RespondentNo.1 sought to seek the same reliefs vide the 2nd suit, which was legally impermissible---Respondent No.1 in essence had filed the same suit, and had simply inserted a new prayer clause seeking specific performance of the sale agreement---The spirit of the 2nd suit otherwise remained unchanged from the 1st initial suit---Respondent No.1 failed to make any amendment / correction regarding their lack of cause of action as was held in the 1stinitial order, and as such was estopped from bringing the 2nd suit against the appellants---The claims made by…