ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

R. A. No. S – 62 of 2010

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

Hearing of cases (Priority)

1. For hearing of CMA No.821/2010

2. For hearing of main case

3. For hearing of CMA No.230/2010

14.01.2019

Mr. Sarfraz A. Akhund advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Korai advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ahmed Ali Shahani Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

.................

This Revision Application is arising out of the conflicting findings of two courts below. The trial Court rejected the plaint and the appellate Court allowed the appeal.

Brief facts are that previously a suit bearing No.38/1993 was filed having old Suit No.32/1985. This suit pertains to the cancellation of the entries as enjoyed by the respondent. The respondent defended the suit, however, it was decreed vide judgment dated 20.06.2002. The respondent filed an appeal, however, it was dismissed, hence the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Suit No.38/1993 attained finality. When an Execution Application bearing No.05/2000 was filed in the year 2002, the Revenue authorities were directed to implement the directions as contained in the judgment and decree. It is a letter that was issued in pursuance of the decree which was impugned in a subsequent suit to which no number was assigned and is available at page 21. The plaint was rejected by the trial Court as no suit against the judgment / decree could be initiated and that the applicant had no cause of action. Order rejecting the plaint is available at page 45.Though the plaint was rejected by the trial Court but the appellate Court allowed the appeal No.26/2009 and remanded the case back to the trial Court.

The only relief sought in a subsequent plaint by the respondent is that the orders of the Revenue authorities be declared as null and void and not binding on the parties. Such declaration could not have been granted as a decree had already been passed insofar as the cancellation of the entries was concerned. Hence any decree in subsequent suit would amount to nullify the order / judgment / decree as passed earlier in Suit No.38/1993 which has already attained finality. Apparently, there was no cause accrued to the respondent which could enable them to file the suit and hence the plaint was rightly considered liable for rejection in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In case the respondent has any grievance insofar as execution of judgment and decree is concerned, he may, since it is claimed that dispute was resolved, could have agitated his dispute before the Executing Court at the relevant time in accordance with law. Subsequent suit is only a futile attempt and without a cause and is an abuse of process of law and hence this Revision Application is allowed and the order of the appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is maintained.

Revision Application and the listed applications stand disposed of in the above terms.

__________________

J U D G E

N.M.