2004 S C M R 1144

 
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
 
Present: Rana Bhagwandas and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ
 
MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others---Petitioners
 
Versus
 
RASHID AHMED and others---Respondents
 
Civil. Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 800-L of 1999, decided on 2nd July, 2002.
 
(On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15-3-1999 passed in Civil
Revision No. 1681-D of 1998).
 
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-----
 
----S.11---Resjudicata---Issue relating to ownership and title in respect of suit-land was finally
heard and decided by competent Court of law-- Such issue raised in subsequent suit would be hit
by principle of res judicata within contemplation of S.11, C.P.C.
 
Rana Abdul Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
 
Nemo for Respondents.
 
Date of hearing: 2nd July, 2002.
 
JUDGMENT
 
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Lahore High Court
judgment, dated 15-3-1999 dismissing their Civil Revision No. 1681-D of 1991 concurring with
the findings of fact arrived at in a suit for declaration and possession filed by the petitioners in
relation to the suit-land.
 
2. On the application of the respondents, plaint in the suit was rejected in terms of Order VII,
rule 11, C.P.C. for the reasons that issue relating to ownership and title in respect of the suit-land
had been finally determined by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos.254 and 255 of 1978 as far back
as 26-5-1990. Review petition against judgment of this Court was also dismissed vide order,
dated 20-10-1993.
 
3. Petitioners preferred an appeal and civil revision against rejection of their plaint by the trial
Court but without any success.
 
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There are concurrent findings of fact that
the issue raised by the petitioners in relation to the suit-land had been finally heard and decided
by a competent Court of law and, thus, issue raised in the subsequent suit was hit by the principle
of Res judicata within the contemplation of section 11, C.P.C. On the face of the record, we are
unable to find any legal infirmity, misreading or non-reading of evidence, misconstruction of any
material on record or misconception of law on the part of the High Court. In the impugned
judgment, High Court has dealt with the entire aspects of the case; which are not open to an
exception.
 
5. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, we find no force in this petition, which is wholly devoid of
any merit. It is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
 
S.A.K./M-605/S Leave refused.