The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 11
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Article 189
Res judicata–– Claiming their right to inheritance through Sahib-un-Nisa from Mehrban Ali’s estate comprising of 62 kanals and 12 marlas of land–– The Appellate Court had disregarded the principle of res judicata /section 11 of the Code and the High Court corrected this mistake of law, and having done so it followed that the suit filed in the year 1997 by the respondents had to be dismissed, because the very same matter had already been decided almost forty years earlier. Public policy also requires that disputes once finally decided should not be reopened. In the present case the 1958 judgment was also not challenged by Sahib-un-Nisa, nor was it challenged by her legal heirs, and instead it was sought to be negated by filing a suit in the year 1997, which is not permissible. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. .....Muhammad Shifa =VS= Meherban Ali, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (SC) 21] ....View Full Judgment

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 100
The Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section 14
Specific performance of an agreement to sell property–– The trial court came to the conclusion that the wife of the vendor was not party to the agreement, therefore, the agreement could not be operative to the extent of her land, and that the subsequent purchasers were bonafide purchasers for value without notice. In view of these findings, the trial court rejected the prayer of the vendee for specific performance of the agreement, but granted him the relief of recovery of the paid consideration amount of Rs.2,79,000/- against the vendor. The vendee being not satisfied of the relief granted appealed in the District Court. As the vendor had not appealed against the decree passed by the trial court against him for recovery of the paid consideration amount, the appellate court only examined the issue on the assertion of the subsequent purchasers to be the bonafide purchasers, in detail, and affirmed the findings of the trial court thereon. The appellate court thus dismissed the first appeal of the vendee, maintaining the judgment of the trial court with a minor modification in the terms that the vendee was held entitled to receive 10% markup also on the paid consideration amount from the date of payment till its recovery.–– The High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the two courts below. Therefore, the emphasis of the High Court on the fact that the subsequent purchasers did not enquire from the revenue officials and inspect the revenue record before purchasing the land is totally misconceived. Nor was there any such overwhelming evidence on the basis of which it could be held that the agreement of the vendee to purchase the suit land was “the talk of the town.” The High Court also fell into error by reversing the finding of the trial court that the wife of the vendor was not party to the agreement therefore the agreement was not operative to the extent of the wife of the vendor.–– The High Court wrongly interfered with their concurrent findings of fact and in so doing exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. Supreme Court, therefore, allow this appeal: set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the first appellate court. .....Zafar Iqbal =VS= Naseer Ahmed, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (SC) 9] ....View Full Judgment