' NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J. This Civil Revision Application under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by learned IVth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Larkana and VI-Additional District Judge, Larkana, rejecting plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. In Civil Suit No.1 of 2006 re. Mst. Rabia v. Abbas and another, for declaration and possession, brought by applicant Mst. Rabia against respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case of applicant Mst. Rabia as disclosed in plaint are applicant/plaintiff purchased Plot No.40 in Bhurgri Colony, Larkana, measuring 2862 sq. Feet. Said plot was purchased from Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Bhurgri, Advocate, as attorney of Abdul Majeed, Abdul Salam and Abdul Samad Bhurgri through registered sale-deed on 13-6-1988, in the consideration of Rs.64,000 and it had no ,boundary wall. On the Eastern side of the plot in suit there are Plots Nos.41 and 39. It is mentioned that Plot No.39 is situated to the Northern side of Plot No.41. Respondent No.1/defendant Abbas Ali through defendant No.2 as his attorney encroached upon the portion of the plot of the applicant in the year 1997 and constructed a house. It is stated that area of 885 sq. Feet is in illegal possession of respondents/defendants. Plaintiff filed suit No.21 of 2002 against defendant No.2 in respect of 285 sq. Feet in the Court of Extra Joint Civil Judge, Larkana, but the same was withdrawn with permission to file the fresh suit. It is stated that a portion measuring 600 sq. Feet occupied by defendant No.2 is part and parcel of Plot No.40 owned by applicant/plaintiff. Cause of action accrued to plaintiff/applicant in the year 1997 when respondents/defendants encroached upon the portion of her plot. The plaintiff prayed for judgment and decree as under:--
(a) Declaration that portion of 600 sq. Feet occupied by defendant No.1 and 285 sq. Feet occupied by defendant No.2 are part and parcel of plot No.40 (plot in suit).
(b) For possession of said portion by ejecting the defendants therefrom.
(c) Costs of the suit.
(d) Any other relief to which the plaintiff is entitled.
3. Defendant/respondent No.1 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Before IVth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Larkana, plaint was rejected by him vide orders dated 31-1-2007 for the followingreasons:-- "I have considered the arguments advanced before me from both sides and have gone through the photostat copies of Civil Suit No.54 of 2002 Re. Mst. Rabia v. Muhammad Saffar (Judgment dated 31-8-2002) Photostat Copy of Judgment in Civil Appeal No.121 of 2002 passed by honourable 1st Additional District Judge, Larkana dated 27-1-2004 and order dated 22-11-2005 passed by honourable Ilnd. Senior Civil Judge, Larkana in F.C. Suit No.4 of 2005. I have also gone through the case-law produced by the learned Advocates for the parties.
' From perusal of the record it appears that in the present suit the plaintiff has shown the name of defendant No.1 as Abbas Ali son of Abdul Majeed Channa r/o Dhoke Kalhora Taluka Dokri while he had shown the name in the Civil Suit No.54 of 2000 before Extra Joint Civil Judge, Larkana as Ghulam Abbas son of not known and has not shown his caste, which was dismissed by the honourable 1st Additional District Judge, Larkana vide his judgment dated 27-1-2004. Thereafter the plaintiff filed F. C. Suit No 4 of 2005 Re. Mst. Rabia v. Abbas Ali and others.
' From perusal of the plaint and title of this suit and title of F. C. Suit No.4 of 2005 Re Mst. Rabia v.
Abbas Ali and others filed in the Court of learned II-Senior Civil Judge, Larkana it appears that in the both suits Abbas Ali son of Abdul Majeed Channa r/o hoke Kalhora Taluka Dokri and. Niaz Hussain son of Haji Ghulam Rasool by caste Bugti r/o House No.29 Shaikh Zaid Colony Larkana have been shown as defendant. In the both suits same property has been shown as case property. It also appears that the both suits have been filed by the same Advocate. The both suits filed by the plaintiff in separate Court have been disposed of against the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has filed fresh suit before this Court by concealing the facts.
' In the case of PORT SERVICES COMPANY LTD V. PORT SERVICES (PVT.) LTD., through Chief Executive and others reported in 2002 CLC page 303 it is held as under:-- ' O. VII. R. 11--Rejection of plaint-Requirements while considering an application 0. VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
For rejection of plaint, not only the plaint has to be examined but the court can also look at and examine the undisputed and admitted material that may be made available by the parties on the record. Averments made in the plaint are considered to be correct unless they be absurd for in contradiction of themselves.
' The case-law produced by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff is not applicable in the present.
Case as in the reported case it is held that tenant not raising plea of res judicata either before rent Controller or appellate court or even in High Court but in the present case the defendant has taken plea at the first instance that the suit is barred by res judicata.
' In view of the above discussion, circumstance of the case and case law I am of res judicata under section 141 of C. P. C, hence application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P. C. Is hereby allowed with no order as to costs and plaint of the plaintiff is hereby rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C."
4. Applicant Mst. Rabia filed civil appeal against the order of rejection of plaint. Learned VI- Additional District Judge, Larkana by judgment dated 8-6-2009 maintained order of trial Court and dismissed appeal.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for parties and with their assistance gone through entire material available on record.
6. It is admitted fact that applicant had filed Suit No.54 of 2000 Re Mst. Rabia v. Muhammad Saffar and Ghulam Abbas for declaration and permanent injunction; suit was dismissed on merits by Extra Joint Civil Judge vide judgment dated 31-8-2002; Appeal was preferred, the same was dismissed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Larkana vide judgment dated 27-1-2004.
Relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel of both the parties and have perused impugned judgment/ decree and have also gone through the record, and evidence. It may be observed that the perusal of the impugned Judgment/decree so that the learned trial. Judge has considered all the aspects of case the judgment is not only based on the correct appreciation of the facts and law but it based on sound reasoning. The appellant has failed to prove that the respondent is the owner of the plot adjacent to the plot of the plaintiff/appellant. It is further evident from the record wherein the appellant in her plaint and evidence claimed that the defendant No.2 was trying to encroach upon the same area of the irrigation department by including 10 sq. Ft. From Plot No.40 which is exclusive property of the appellant it appears that the cause of action was accrued against the defendant No.2 for filing the suit but subsequently the suit against defendant No.2 was withdrawn by the plaintiff/ appellant, therefore, no cause of action accrued against the defendant No. 1/respondent for filing the suit. It is further evident from the record that Mukhaarkar Larkana inspected the site under the order of the trial Court and submitted report on 12-11-1999 wherein it is not stated anywhere in the report that the respondent/ defendant encroached upon the area of the plaintiff/appellant. The learned Mukhtiarkar Larkana clearly stated in his report that the disputed plot bearing Nos.41, 42, 13, 44 and 45 from S.No.420 and other of the Larkana has been demarked on 6-10-1999 in presence of both the parties and found that the plot No.41 consisting 2 parts each of 1200 sq. Ft. The second part is falling to one Abbas All Channa from the perusal of record and evidence and report of the Mukhtiarkar it appears that no encroachment made by the respondent nor the adjacent property belonged to respondent therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant is not maintainable and no cause of action has accrued to plaintiff/ appellant to file the suit against the defendant No. 1 /respondent.
The judgment passed by the learned trial Court therefore, does not suffer from any irregularity and illegality and calls for no interference. Resultantly, I do not find any merits in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost and the impugned judgment decree is consequently maintained."
7. In order to appreciate the-arguments of learned counsel for the parties, section 11, C.P.C. Is reproduced as under:-- "11. Res Judicata.---"No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court."
8. It is matter of record that earlier suit of applicant Mst. Rabia for declaration, permanent injunction and damages was dismissed on merits. Appeal was also dismissed. Applicant filed second suit on same cause of action after 6 years. Plaint was rejected on the ground the suit being hit by principles of res judicata. Plaint was rightly rejected on the basis of averments of plaint and earlier judgments passed in respect of suit property for the reasons that matter substantially in issue in former suit between same parties has already been finally decided.
9. While considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. For rejection of plaint, not only the plaint has to be examined, but Court can also look into and examine the undisputed and admitted material that may be made available by the parties on record. I find no legal force in the contention of Mr. Shahani, Counsel for the applicant, that plaint has been rejected without framing issues. Earlier suit filed by applicant Mst. Rabia for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by discussing all issues. Appeal was also dismissed. No other point worth consideration has been raised in support of this revision. Since concurrent findings of fact on face of record are neither arbitrary nor fanciful or perverse. There is no scope for interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, which is essentially meant for correcting errors of law, committed by subordinate courts. Needless to emphasize such jurisdiction is restricted and narrower. A reference may be made to the dictum laid down in Haji Muhammad Din v. Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291).
10. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no merit in this civil revision application, which is accordingly dismissed.