Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 11, O. XVII, R. 3 , O. VII, R.11(d)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 11, O. XVII, R. 3 & O. VII, R.11(d)--Res judicata--Dismissal for want of evidence--Decision on merits-Rejection of plaint--Finality of decree--Subsequent suit barred--Addition of parties not fresh cause of action--Concurrent findings--Once issues had been settled and opportunities to lead evidence afforded a dismissal under O.XVII, R.3 CPC for want of evidence, is dismissal on merit and after laps of limitation same attained finality--Subject matter of both suit was identical--Decree dated 05.11.2015 having attained finality, subsequent suit involving same mutation and property was barred by res judicata addition of official respondents or witnesses in second suit neither altered nature of lis nor generated a new cause of action--Court to rejecte a plaint where, from statements in plaint read with admitted prior record, suit appeared to be barred by law--Concurrent findings suffer from no misreading or non-reading.                                                               [Pp. 1005 & 1006] A, B, C & D Haji Muhammad Tariq Aziz Khokhar, Advocate for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 20.8.2025. Order This revision petition is directed against the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Rajanpur dated 20.12.2017 and the judgment of the learned District Judge, Rajanpur dated 16.01.2020, whereby the plaint of the petitioner was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 11 thereof. Both Courts below concurrently held that the subsequent suit instituted by the petitioner was hit by the doctrine of res judicata. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, the controversy before this Court is confined to whether the dismissal of the earlier suit on 05.11.2015 under Order XVII Rule 3 amounts to a…