Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2029 2002 SLD 2029 2002 CLC 1784
Sindh High Court
Suits Nos.325 and 274 of 1995 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.7902 of 1998, decision dated: 7-03-2002
WAHID BUX BROHI, J
M. Naimur Rehman for Plaintiff. Faisal Kamal for Defendant No .1

Mst. SHAMIM ASHFAQ----Plaintiff

VS

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. II, R.2---Bar on second suit---Applicability---Order II, R.2, C.P.C. would be attracted, where causes of action were exactly the same and same evidence would sustain both the suits---Same party could not be vexed twice for the same relief omitted in earlier suit. The Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. The District Council of Bakarganj PLD 1970 SC 63 and Muhammad Khan v. Arshad Jamil 1987 MLD 671 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. II, R.2 & O.VII, R.11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss.7 & 16--­Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 1979, Regln. 13---Bar under O.II, R.2, C.P.C.--- Applicability--- Test to determine identity of causes of action---Plaintiff in earlier suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleged that defendants while demolishing construction of adjoining house had damaged partition wall and blocked the passage. of her house---Plaintiff in earlier suit also stated that seemingly there were plans of defendants to raise high-rise building on adjoining plot--­Plaintiff, after coming to know about approval of plan for high-rise building, filed second suit against defendants by adding Karachi Building Control Authority as defendant and sought relief in the form of injunction---Defendants objected to second suit being barred by O. II, R.2, C.P.C, and sought rejection of plaint under O.VII, R.11(d), C.P..C.---Validity---Plaintiff's case in second suit was that raising of high-rise building was against the rules and regulations---Violation of rules had been alleged against Karachi Building Control Authority, who was 'not party in earlier suit---Allegations of blocking the passage and other amenities might be common to some extent, but cause of action was quite distinct in both the suits as the test of evidence required to prove the controversial issues would be varying in many respects---Set of evidence being different, it could not be contended that there was a common cause of action and second suit was barred under O.11, R.2, C.P.C.---High Court dismissed the application of defendants and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492